Were Basic Rights Violated?

In the Supreme Court's decision of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Javaid Iqbal filed a claim that government officials were responsible for the conditions of his detainment after September  11, 2001 confinement.  He claimed that they violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights.  He sued several government officials, Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller.  They claimed they were immune from liability and filed a 12(b) 6 claim to dismiss the claim.  The district court dismissed the claim, but Ashcroft's claimed had reached the Supreme Court and ruled that Iqbal's claim failed to reach insufficient facts that Ashcroft had violated his rights.  The court focused it's analysis on two statements:  the first one being that "the [FBI] under the direction of MUELLER arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men as part of its investigation of the event of September 11, 2001," and "the policy of holding post-September 11 detainees in highly restrictive conditions of confinement until they were 'cleared' by the FBI was approved by the defendants Ashcroft and Mueller in discussion in the weeks following September 11th, 2001."

                Rule 15 gave a second chance to claims that might have otherwise been rejected after Iqbal.  Amending as a matter of course gave a party to the right to plead without permission of the court or other party.  This gave the party the right to amend as a matter of course 21 days after serving it, and if a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after it is served.  It extended the time from twenty to twenty-one days and that a responsive pleading no longer prevented a party from pleading.

                On whether or not this strategy is worthwhile, a safety net for dismissals of a claim should be worthwhile to give parties a second chance at having their claims heard where a court previously dismisses it.  This would give the party the right to have their claim heard in court and give them the extended time to find sufficent facts in order to plead their claim.  In this case, the court found that Iqbal's claim had insufficient facts, so the new Civil Procedure Rule 15 would give party's the right to submit and have a new chance at having their claim heard in court.

Reference

                Reuland, T. A. (May 2011).  Rule 15:  A Limited Safety Net For 12(b)(6) Dismissd After Iqbal.  Iowa Law Review, 96, 4. p. 1403(25).  Retrieved May 23, 2012, from Academic OneFile via Gale:  http://find.galegroup.com/gts/start.do?userGroupName=pho3873&prodid=AONE