• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Military Contractor Sues Iraq | Main | Boies Schiller Picks Up Friedrich From DOJ »

July 23, 2009


Mark Crenshaw, Esq.

Quite frankly, I agree with the proposed bill simply because the recent Supreme Court decisions seemingly make it more difficult for pro se litigants to get into federal court. And more importantly, it deprive a plaintiff of the opportunity to come to a federal forum unless all facts supporting the claim are present on the face of the complaint. That might be true for some litigations but what is not true is the fact that some litigation involve claims that require discovery in order to be properly pleaded. With all that said, the less stricter pleading requirement should stand; otherwise, there will be other claims alleging denial of right of access to the courts, which, as we all know, is a "constitutional" mandated right of all the people.

Account Deleted

While I don't think the bill is a good idea, leaving out 12(c) motions makes at least some sense. 12(b)(6) and 12(e) motions are typically filed earlier in a case than 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings. As drafted the bill would restore the more lenient standard to the early motions but I think Twombly/Iqbal would still apply to 12(c) motions. At the outset of a case a plaintiff might have an argument that he or she needs at least some discovery to get more specific facts, and will amend later to plead those, but that argument would weaken fast as a case went on. Personally, I don't think it is too much to ask that a plaintiff wait to file in the first place until he or she already has the more specific facts, but this reading of the bill would at least leave the tougher standard applicable to 12(c) motions. And would mean that Specter is not necessarily a *complete* knucklehead.


Rule 12(c) motions are apparently excluded. Specter is apparently a complete knucklehead.

Jim Dandy

Could it be that Roberts and Alito planned this destruction of the rights to court all just to protect the neocons such as Yoo, Judge Bybee, Rumfeld, etc. ? The Right has long feared and hated Bivens so when this opportunity presented itself, just as they do with a abortion case, why wouldn't those that have ignored precedents they swore to honor, take advantage of it ?

Too cynical, too political ? I wish it was a different time but it is not.

Cindy Apfel

Hmmmm, curious proposal but seems to me that reversing the Iqbal decision will only open the door to Bivens-type lawsuits by Gitmo detainees against the US government.


Shouldn't the legislation read "12(c)" (judgment on the pleadings) not "12(e)" (more for more definite statement)?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad