Modern Pleading Standards

The assumption standard does not meet modern pleading standards because it allows plaintiffs to present a claim that is missing an essential element of due process. An initial question is what are modern pleading standards? Pleadings standard in the modern era have become stricter and require plaintiffs to show more than they might have in the past. In two cases, Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , the Supreme Court expanded the scope of pleading requirements. The Supreme Court held that “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” The Court went on to state “[a] claim has facial plausibility when
Under the assumption approach, courts commonly allow claims to continue even if the plaintiff does not allege a property interest. As previously discussed, courts generally find that a preliminary question in any due process case is that the plaintiff have a property interest (or another type of interest). Therefore, when a plaintiff does not allege a property interest, it does not appear to meet the plausibility standard as it is missing an essential element. In fact, many courts have found that the proper remedy if a plaintiff does not allege a protected interest is to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For example, in Bissessur v. Indiana University Board of Trustees, the Seventh Circuit held that “[the plaintiff’s] complaint falls drastically short of providing the necessary factual details to meet the Twombly standard,” because it failed to allege a property interest. As the assumption approach allows plaintiffs to continue their claim without alleging a property interest, it does meet the heightened pleading requirements under
As Horowitz and Ewing serve as the leading cases on this question, they should provide whether a right is clearly established or not. But, as previously mentioned, these cases made it clear that the Supreme Court was not holding that university students have a property interest in their education. Since, the assumption approach does not take a position on this question, it seems clear that the question is not “beyond debate” as the Supreme Court said was required. The Ninth Circuit has supported this proposition by stating that a plaintiff must show “the law was . . . clearly established that the type of injury [the plaintiff] alleges constituted a constitutionally protected “liberty” or “property” interest.” The Ninth Circuit went on to hold that the student in that case failed to show that her property interest was clearly established. This case demonstrates how the assumption approach does not meet the doctrine of qualified immunity, because the assumption approach does not create a clearly established property interest in