~~~:::£..
. ! . ! . ~ ~ = - . . . . . . . : - = - - . = : . . : : ! . . . ! . . . - . : ~ . . . . : : : : . ; : , : ~ ~ ,
287 F.3d
138,
145(2d
Cir.
2002).
"This
is
especially
true
when
deal
ing
with
.121:Q.
secomplaints
al
ing
c I
rights
lations."
Weixel,
287
F.3d
at
146.
Notwithstanding
lowances
that
courts
make
r
prose
litigants,
however,
they
are
not
exempt from
the
usual
pleading
requirements.
See
Graham
v.
Knebel,
No.
08
Civ.
4363
(LAP),
2009
WL
4334382,
at
*2
(S.D.N.Y.
Dec.
1,
2009).
Supreme
Court's
decision inBell
Atlantic
Corp.
v.
Twombly,
550
U.S.
544,127
S.
Ct.
1955
(2007), adds
a
"plaus
lity
standard," in
evaluat the
sufficiency
of
a
complaint,
which
is
guided
by
"[t]wo
working
principles."
Ashcroft
v.
Iqbal,
U.S.
,
129
S.
Ct.
1937,
1949
(2009);
see
also
Harris
v.
Mills,
572
F.3d
66,
72
(2d
Cir.
2009);
Bilello
v.
J.P.
Morgan
Chase
Ret.
Plan,
No.
07
Civ.
7379
(DLC),
2009
WL
2461005,
at
*5-6
(S.D.N.Y.
Aug.
12,
2009).
"rst,
tenetthat
a
court
must
accept
as
true
I
ofthe
allegations
contained
in
a
complaint
is
inapplicable
to
legal
conclusions.
Threadbare
recitals
of
elements
of
a
cause
of
action,
supported
by
mere
conclusory
statements,
do
not
suffice."
Iqbal,
129 S.
Ct.
at
1949;
see
also
Harris,
372
F.3d
at
72.
"Second,
only
a
complaint
that
states
a
plausib
claim
for
relief
survives
a
motion
to
dismiss,"
and
"[d]etermining
whether
a
compla
states
a
plausible
claim
for
relief
will
be
a
context-specific
task
that
requires
the
reviewing
court
to
draw on
3
Case 1:08-cv-04581-LTS -THK Document 97 Filed 01/11/11 Page 3 of 7