Federal Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. For half a century that was read very generously, and a complaint survived unless there was no set of facts that could support it. Two Supreme Court decisions replaced that with a plausibility standard, and a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) now asks whether the facts pleaded make the claim plausible rather than merely conceivable.
Rule
- Step one. Identify and set aside legal conclusions and formulaic recitals of the elements. They get no presumption of truth.
- Step two. Take the remaining factual allegations as true and ask whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.
- Plausible, not probable. The claim needs enough factual content to let the court draw a reasonable inference of liability. It does not need to be more likely than not.
- Judicial experience. Determining plausibility is a context specific task drawing on the court's experience and common sense.
- Special pleading. Fraud and mistake must still be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b), while intent and knowledge may be alleged generally.
Leading cases
- Conley v. Gibson: the old no set of facts formulation, which the Court later said had earned its retirement.
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly: an antitrust complaint alleging parallel conduct without facts suggesting an agreement did not cross the line from conceivable to plausible.
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal: the plausibility standard applies to all civil actions, and the two-step approach of disregarding conclusions and then testing plausibility was made explicit.
Where students go wrong
The first mistake is saying the court weighs evidence. On a motion to dismiss there is no evidence. The court reads the complaint, sets aside conclusions, and assumes the remaining facts are true.
The second is confusing plausibility with probability. The standard does not ask which side is likely to win. It asks whether the pleaded facts, taken as true, support more than a sheer possibility of misconduct.
The third is forgetting the different motions. Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint, summary judgment tests the record after discovery, and mixing them produces an answer that applies the wrong standard.
FAQ
What is the difference between notice pleading and plausibility pleading?
Notice pleading asked only whether the defendant had fair notice of the claim. Plausibility asks whether the pleaded facts, stripped of conclusions, make the claim plausible on its face.
Can a plaintiff amend after a dismissal?
Usually yes. Rule 15 directs courts to give leave freely when justice requires, and a first dismissal for insufficient facts is commonly without prejudice.
Does the standard apply to affirmative defenses?
Courts are split. Some apply plausibility to defenses pleaded under Rule 8(c), others hold that the text of the rule imposes a lighter requirement.
Related terms
Working through this in your own casebook takes longer than reading it here. Syllume starts from your syllabus and turns each assigned case into a brief you can study from.