OPINION APPLIES TO BOTH ACTIONS

DEBEVOISE, Senior District Judge:

Moving to dismiss Plaintiffs claims, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Defendants essentially maintain that Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim against them simply because Defendants are high-ranking supervising officials, and Plaintiffs' facts lack the particularities of Defendants' decision-making process and actions. This Court disagrees and will deny Defendants' motions, in part, and grant them in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Both Plaintiffs are civilly committed sexually violent predators ("SVPs") confined under the New Jersey Sexually Violent Predator Act ("NJSVPA"), N.J. Stat. Ann.§ 30:4-27.24. Both are now housed at the Special Treatment Unit ("STU") of the East Jersey State Prison ("EJSP"). See County of Hudson v. State Dep't of Corr., 2009 WL 1361546, at *1 and n. 2, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *2 and n. 2 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. Apr. 22, 2009).1 Prior to being confined at the EJSP, the SVPs, Plaintiffs included, were confined at a Hudson County facility: at Kearny. See id. at *1-2, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *2-4. Since the events underlying the SVPs' transfer from Kearny to the EJSP STU are relevant to the issues at bar and have already been adjudicated in the state courts, with the DOC having had a full and fair opportunity to present its facts with regard to the DOC's obligation to find—and its search for—a transferee facility, it appears warranted to replicate the state courts' findings in detail:

Id. at *1-6, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *2-16 (citations, brackets and footnotes 2, 3 and 5 omitted, footnote 4 incorporated).

Noting that "Newton's First Law of Motion states that an object in motion tends to stay in motion[,] and that an object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by a net external force, [and thus, if the state courts were to] fail to exert [their] own external force, the matter [of transferring the SVPs out of Kearny would] remain at rest for the indefinite future," the state courts directed the DOC to transfer the SVPs, regardless of all financial/logistical difficulties and local opposition. Id. at *6-7, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *17-19. That decision was entered on May 18, 2009, and "allow[ed the DOC] one year from [that day] for compliance [with the state court's order]." Id. at *7, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *19. Having to scramble for a swift solution, the DOC revisited its above-detailed options and, seemingly finding its previously-twice-rejected option of transferring the SVPs to the EJSP the most viable, called all Kearny SVPs for a meeting on March 17, 2010, and informed them that they would be moved to the EJSP for housing at the STU being carved out of the EJSP's main facility.

The two matters at bar ensued, both commenced pro se.

The complaint submitted by Thaddeus James Thomas ("Thomas") in the wake of that March 17, 2010, meeting, asserted two lines of claims. One alleged that the transfer to the EJSP STU, if executed, would subject him to confinement in prison-like conditions since that STU, being carved out of the EJSP, would be structured and administered like a correctional facility, not a medical facility for treatment of mental patients. The other line of claims alleged that, in light of what Thomas understood to be a projected disparity between the levels of treatment at Kearny and at the STU, his transfer to the STU would either wholly deprive him of or markedly reduce his mental treatment indispensable for his recovery.

Thomas' latter claim seemingly proved prophetic.

Thomas' next submissions notified the Court that the SVPs' transfer to the STU did take place, and that his mental therapy was halted during the transfer period. Soon thereafter, he filed a supplement clarifying that his mental therapy resumed shortly after his arrival to the STU, but the extent/frequency of that therapy was indeed markedly lower than that provided at Kearney.2 Then, Thomas submitted an amended complaint asserting that he was placed in a segregated housing unit ("SHU") created within the STU, and that placement fully eliminated his access to any mental therapy. Meanwhile, the complaint filed by Ronald Nash ("Nash") similarly suggested reduction in Nash's mental therapy upon his arrival to the EJSP STU and, in addition, repeated other claims raised in Thomas' submissions.

On October 15, 2010, this Court issued an opinion and accompanying order addressing the claims raised in all Nash and Thomas' pro se submissions.

The Court noted that the claims based on the brief gap in therapy associated with the transfer from Kearney to the EJSP STU were facially without merit, while the claims based on reduction/change/elimination of mental therapy were sufficiently pled to survive sua sponte dismissal.3 This Court, therefore, directed the Clerk to appoint pro bono counsel for each Plaintiff and ordered both counsel to file amended pleadings elaborating on Plaintiffs' individual reduction/change/denial of medical-care claims.4 Such amended complaints were duly filed, and Defendants timely moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). Being further re-briefed, pursuant to the Court's order, those filings are now before this Court.

II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS

Thomas' and Nash's respective challenges could be subdivided into three distinct groups. One group could roughly be defined as claims asserting overall inadequacy of treatment administered by the DOC to all SVPs held at Kearny/EJSP STU. See Thomas v. Adams, Civil Action No. 10-5026, Docket Entry No. 26, at 11-13 (asserting that "[t]he number of mental health staff failed to keep pace with the increase in the number of [the SVPs]," "[t]herapy groups increased to a size where they are no longer effective," "[g]roup therapy no longer afforded treatment tailored to [each SVP's] mental health needs," "[the] DOC officials now have a much greater role in the facility," "[the] DOC officers . . . now oversee mental health treatment [and] often actively interfere with this treatment and impede its progress by . . . harassing and degrading [the SVPs]," "the prison-like conditions [of the STU]—caused both by the nature of the physical facility, which was designed to serve as a high-security prison administrative segregation unit, and by the conduct of the staff—undermines the ability of [the SVPs] to receive adequate treatment"); accord Nash v. Christie, Docket Entry No. 22, at 10-11 ("At the STU, [mental therapy] groups have gotten larger and meet . . . less frequently [which] decreas[es] their effectiveness and/or render[s] them entirely ineffective," "[t]he group therapy sessions at the STU improperly group together [SVPs] with a variety of mental health disorders that require distinct treatment regimens," "[t]he group therapy sessions address topics irrelevant to the purpose of [some SVPs'] involuntary commitment [hence rendering these sessions a waste of these SVPs' time," "DOC officers . . . are present in and/or oversee . . . group therapy sessions, undermining the sessions' therapeutic value," "[the SVPs are] not sufficiently informed of the therapy agendas and specific goals of [their] treatment program[s]," "[the SVPs have] not been provided with any meaningful feedback regarding [their] individual mental health progress").

The other group consists of Plaintiffs' individualized claims asserting that their own, prescribed mental treatment was provided at Kearny but became denied/reduced/changed for non-medical reasons upon their transfer to the STU/SHU. Toward that end, Thomas stated that, "after serving some ten years in criminal custody [after his] 1990 sexual assault conviction," he has spent more than a decade in civil detention housed at Kearny and then the STU. Thomas, Civil Action No. 10-5026, Docket Entry No. 26, at 9. According to Thomas' allegations, he was receiving several types of prescribed therapy while he was housed at Kearny and therapy "included `process group' [and] several treatment `modules' addressing specific issues such as substance abuse or anger management, each of which proceeded in phases in accordance with [Thomas'] individual's progress." Id. at 10. The Kearny treatment proved highly beneficial to Thomas and, "by the time he was transferred out of Kearny in May 2010, he had completed several modules with above-average or average marks." Id. Yet, upon being placed at the STU, he "has been offered no more than 3 hours of treatment per week, [i.e.,] less than one-third of the treatment that he had received at Kearny." Id. at 12. Moreover, the reduced treatment offered to Thomas at the STU took "no account of the treatment that he had completed [in Kearny]" since it "required [him] to start from square one." Id. at 12-13. Worse over, "if a [prescribed] treatment . . . session happen[ed] not to be offered on the [SHU grounds, where Thomas became confined soon after his transfer to the STU, that mental treatment became] simply not available to . . . Thomas." Id. at 12, n. 1. Consequently, Thomas claims that he has effectively had no mental treatment "since May 2011, . . . due to ongoing construction [at the SHU] that has left no space available for treatment [on the SHU grounds]." Id. Put another way, he asserts that he was denied all mental treatment simply because the DOC officials either did not or could not complete their construction tasks in time.

Nash's re-pled claims as to the reduction of his prescribed mental treatment largely mimic those of Thomas: short of the claim as to complete denial of treatment. Although Nash is confined within the EJSP STU general population (not at the SHU), according to his pleadings,

Nash, Docket Entry No. 22, at 9.

The third group of Plaintiffs' claims is painted in large strokes since it broadly asserts that the "treatment [is] now provided by social workers and recreation staff rather than by psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers . . ., as at Kearny." Thomas, Civil Action No. 10-5026, Docket Entry No. 26, at 11; accord Nash, Docket Entry No. 22, at 9-10 ("At . . . Kearney, . . . Nash received treatment from psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers. At the STU, Nash's treatment. . . is only provided by social workers and/or recreation staff'). Being stated in those terms, these claims leave the Court guessing whether Plaintiffs' prescribed mental therapy was such that it had to be administered by "psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers" or, in alternative, it was such that it could be "provided by social workers and/or recreation staff."5

Plaintiffs named nine Defendants in this matter: Christopher J. Christie ("Christie," Governor of the State of New Jersey), Paula T. Dow ("Dow," a former Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, who became the First Deputy General Counsel for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on January 10, 2012, and later that year became a Superior Court Judge in the Family Court Division in Burlington County), Gary M. Lanigan ("Lanigan," Commissioner of the DOC since March 2010), Jennifer Velez ("Velez," Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Human Services since 2007), John Main ("John Main," Director of the New Jersey Department of Human Services), Jonathan Poag ("Poag," Director of the Division of Mental Health Services), Merrill Main ("Main," Clinical Director of the EJSP SHU), Shantay Braim Adams ("Adams," Assistant Director of the EJSP SHU) and Jackie Ottino ("Ottino," Program Coordinator of the EJSP SHU). See Nash, Docket Entry No. 11.6 No subordinate officer of the STU/SHU was ever named as a Defendant, and Plaintiffs' allegations have been consistently devoid of facts suggesting that wrongful acts by any subordinate officer were the cause of Plaintiffs' individualized injuries, i.e., the injuries not shared with other SVPs.

Defendants moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. These motions (and Defendants' replies to Plaintiffs' opposition to these motions, as well as Defendants' sur-replies filed under this Court's order directing further re-briefing) articulated one key argument and two secondary ones. See Thomas, Civil Action No. 10-5026, Docket Entries Nos. 16, 28 and 29; see also Nash, Docket Entries No. 18, 28. On the one hand, Defendants maintained that Plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a plausible claim within the meaning of Rules 8(a) and 12(b), as clarified by the relevant Supreme Court and Court of Appeals' decisions, since all Defendants here were supervising/high-ranking officials who, by definition, were not involved in the day-to-day operations of the EJSP STU or the SHU within the STU.

In addition to this argument, Defendants asserted that: (a) they were entitled to qualified immunity; and (b) Plaintiffs' challenges were facially insufficient to avail Plaintiffs to permanent injunctive relief upon final resolution of the matters at bar.

III. CLAIM PRECLUSION CONSIDERATIONS

The litigation here has been taking place not only in the aftermath of state litigation in County of Hudson, 2009 WL 1361546, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, but also against the backdrop of another long-running litigation: in this District. Almost a decade prior to the SVPs transfer to the EJSP STU, i.e., shortly after Governor Whitman's entry of Executive Order 118 (under which the SVPs became temporarily housed at Kearny), a certain SVP commenced a § 1983 action challenging sufficiency of the overall mental treatment administered at Kearny. See Alves v. Main, 2012 WL 6043272, at *1, 3-4, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171773, at *8, 15-16 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2012); see also Alves, et al v. Ferguson, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0789, Docket Entry No. 1. By 2005, about "30 additional cases" raising analogous challenges were administratively consolidated with that seminal matter. See Alves, 2012 WL 6043272, at *4, 7-8, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171773, at *17, 26-27. By 2012, the volume of those claims became such that a class was certified to address the alleged overall inadequacy of mental treatment administered to all SVPs by the DOC, be it at Kearny or—during the last stages of the Alves class action—at the EJSP STU. See Alves v. Ferguson, Civil Action No. 01-0789 (D.N.J.).

Since Plaintiffs' joint amended complaint contained, inter alia, a few passim allegations as to the overall inadequacy of mental treatment administered at the EJSP STU, in October 2011, this Court—mindful of the then-ongoing Alves litigation—severed those Plaintiffs' allegations into a separate matter and directed consolidation of that separate matter with the Alves class action. See Thomas v. Christie, Civil Action No. 10-5026, Docket Entry No. 17, at 2 ("[T]he Alves matter [is] a series of cases concerned with the alleged insufficiency of overall medical treatment received by [the] SVPs . . ., Plaintiffs are SVPs, and their amended complaint raised, inter alia, a line of challenges virtually indistinguishable from the issues . . . litigated in Alves"). In contrast, the instant matters were "reserved for . . . Plaintiffs' . . . individualized[] lines of [constitutional] challenges. . . predicated on . . . the alleged [denial, change or] reduction in medical treatment Plaintiffs have been receiving [after the transfer]." Id. at 2-3. The Court's order to that effect was entered in October 2011.

Half a year later, i.e., in March 2012, the Alves class action was settled after hard-fought negotiations. See Alves v. Main, 559 Fed.Appx. 151 (3d Cir.2014). The Court of Appeals described that process as follows:

Id. at 153-54.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the attack by the SVPs who challenged the Alves Settlement and pointed out that the Settlement was a disposition qualitatively different from a judicial resolution of any SVP's individualized constitutional claims. See id. at 154-56 ("[The SVPs'] arguments are based on the false premise that [the Expert's] evaluation utilized the constitutional standard and conclusively determined which [modalities of the] STU treatment . . . fell below that standard. [However, the Expert] did not even use the constitutional standard, but instead her own expert opinion of how the STU should be run") (emphasis supplied).

Thus, upon the Alves Settlement, Plaintiffs' claims that had been consolidated with Alves, i.e., their challenges to the alleged overall inadequacy of mental treatment administered at Kearny/EJSP STU, became fully extinguished and barred for the purposes on any litigation, including the matters at bar. See id. at 156 ("[I]f funding is not secured [to furnish the settlement-based overall mode of mental treatment], Plaintiffs may declare any affected provisions `void' and resume [their Alves] litigation with respect to that provision"). In contrast, Plaintiffs' individualized constitutional claims reserved here remained unaffected by the Alves Settlement or the Settlement's references to the SVPs' transfer from Kearny to the EJSP STU. These reserved claims have remained as intact as if all SVPs stayed at Kearny, and the Kearny officials would have denied/reduced/changed Plaintiffs' mental treatment for non-medical reasons. Cf. Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir.2014).7

IV. RULE 12 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard a court applies on a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(b) is the same standard the court applies to screen the pleadings for sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which—in turn—derives from Rule 8(a). See West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85, 98 (3d Cir.2010); Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 223 n. 2 (3d Cir.2004); Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir.2000).

In harmony with the aim of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding," see Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, Rule 8(a) has been modestly asking a pleader for a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). These words, known as the "simplified notice pleading requirement," Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993), are the linchpin of this nation's federal practice.8

The unobtrusive obligation to "show" entitlement to relief was adopted to ensure that form would never be put over substance. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ("The Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep . . . may be decisive to the out-come and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits"). In fact, this substance-over-form concern was the main reason the Conley Court ventured into its discussion of the pleading standard. See id.

Yet, by a peculiar whim of jurisprudential fate, a single sentence in Conley, namely, "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief," id. at 46, 78 S.Ct. 99 ("Conley passage"), which was a mere expression of the Supreme Court's bewilderment with the dismissive treatment Conley's well-pled facts had received at the inferior courts, somehow succeeded at obliterating the facts, the logic and all other aspects of Conley, and it also nearly annihilated the gist of Rules 8(a) and 12(b).9

Gradually, the Conley passage came to be construed as allowing a pleader to avoid asserting any facts. With that, even bold, purely self-serving, conclusory expressions of subjective feeling of injustice/displeasure were transformed into viable "pleadings."10 See, e.g., Arthur R. Miller, Simplified Pleading, Meaningful Days in Court, and Trials on the Merits: Reflections on the Deformation of Federal Procedure, 88 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 286, 365-66 (2013) ("[Under the Conley passage,] the pleader merely had to say that she felt aggrieved and state what was desired—something. . . analogous to [the statement made by Charles Dickens' character] Oliver Twist [who merely uttered], `Please, sir . . . I want some more gruel'") (footnote and brackets omitted).

Once the possibility of commencing a legal action governed by the Conley passage standard came about, loose pleadings devoid of facts became all too common, contributing to the flood of litigation which swelled judicial dockets and caused parties who suffered true injuries long delays in vindication of their rights.11

Since the existence of pleadings excesses was insufficient to prevent abuses based on the Conley passage, the need for a tool facilitating judicial separation of the chaff of baseless pleadings from the wheat of bona fide claims became evident when courts began expressing their ire with the "mumbo jumbo" offered for judicial review. See, e.g., Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC, 650 F.3d 993, 1006 (3d Cir.2011) (Jordan, J., dissenting). Hence, the Supreme Court clarified, albeit in passing, that—for a plaintiff seeking "more gruel"—"it should not prove burdensome. . . to provide [the named defendants with] some indication of the [facts] that the plaintiff ha[d] in mind" in support of his claims against these defendants. Dura Pharms., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005). And, since that brief clarification went, alas, largely unnoticed, the Supreme Court re-explained, this time in detail:

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558-60, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Notably, the Twombly Court took pains to point out that the abusive litigation practices the Court had in mind were rooted solely in the Conley passage, and no other part of Conley was in need of a clarification, moreover a vacatur. Contrary to what appears to be the unfortunate popular belief, Conley—that is, the holding of Conley (i.e., the application of Rule 8 to Conley's well-pled facts), as opposed to the abusive uses of the Conley passage—remains good law under Twombly and its progeny:

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-62, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations, brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). While reduced to terms that could hardly qualify as ambiguous, the Twombly teaching barely took.12

Thus, the Supreme Court revisited the issue once again, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, this time spelling out that:

556 U.S. 662, 677-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 684, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (stressing that there could not be an "antitrust" or "pro se civil litigant" exception to the pleading requirement, since "Rule [8(a)] governs the pleading standard in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts") (quotation marks omitted).

Unlike the teachings in Dura and Twombly, the Iqbal guidance sunk in.13

Perhaps, it sunk in too well and in the way the Iqbal Court never envisioned since, diametrically changing their course, many a jurist embarked on coining a misreading of Iqbal ("Iqbal misreading") as divorced from the actual holding of Iqbal (i.e., from the application of Rule 8 to Iqbal's insufficiently-pled facts) as the abusive uses of the Conley passage were divorced from the actual holding of Conley. Gradually, the Iqbal misreading became construed as a heightened pleading standard de facto facilitating denial of access to the courts. See, e.g., J. Scott Pritchard, The Hidden Costs of Pleading Plausibilty, 83 Temp. L.Rev. 757, 781 and n. 208 (2011) ("Twombly and Iqbal have enabled lower courts to use their [`]discretion[' in] . . . dealing with . . . dockets at the expense of judicial access . . . . The [`]discretion['] bestowed on lower courts has had the practical effect of officially authorizing the de facto heightened pleading standard").14

Nowhere has the Iqbal misreading been more evident and distortive of the letter and spirit of Rule 8 than in the matters containing claims against defendants holding supervisory positions. While, half a century ago, the Conley passage came to be construed as allowing a pleader to avoid asserting any facts, the Iqbal misreading came to be used as a shield that allowed virtually every wrongdoer holding a supervisory position to escape litigation upon claiming "insufficiency of pleading," i.e., upon uttering the hollow phrase which came to mean that a plaintiff, separated from the supervisor-wrongdoer by a few ranks of subordinates, simply had no meaningful way to learn about and plead, without discovery, the particularities of the wrongdoer's exact conduct.

Such Iqbal misreading is troubling. The contraction of the Conley holding into the Conley passage might or might not have done a long term damage. However, the transformation of the careful, thoughtful and well-grounded holding of Iqbal into the Iqbal misreading threatens such damage.15

Iqbal did not change any aspect of substantive law. Nor did Iqbal create a liability exception for the defendants fortunate to hold supervisory positions. And, a fortiori, Iqbal did not change a single word of Rule 8(a) (or Rule 12(b)), or the meanings of these Rules: the actual holding of Iqbal merely elaborated on the Supreme Court's original passim observation in Dura that "it should not prove burdensome [for a plaintiff] to provide [his defendants with] some indication of the [facts] that the plaintiff has in mind," 544 U.S. at 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627 (emphasis supplied), since the Federal Rules have always been asking a pleader for a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see Animal Sci. Prods. v. China Nat'l Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Corp., 702 F.Supp.2d 320, 380-81 (D.N.J.2010) (addressing the effect of Twombly on a pleading filed during the Conley reign and citing Schiller v. Phys. Res. Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563 (5th Cir.2003), for the observation that "an entry of a binding precedent, [like Twombly or Iqbal] which . . . clarifies—rather than alters the existing legal regime [like the one ensuing from the Conley holding's elaboration of Rule 8(a)]—cannot qualify as an intervening change in the law [set forth by Rule 8]"), remanded on other grounds, 654 F.3d 462 (3d Cir.2011).

Thirty six years ago,

L.A. County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29, 131 S.Ct. 447, 451-52, 178 L.Ed.2d 460 (2010) (emphasis in original, ellipses and parenthetical explanations omitted).

Thirty six years after Monell, the pleading standard as to supervising officials remains the same. It is with that standard in mind, the Supreme Court addressed those Iqbal claims that were merely disguised respondeat superior challenges.

In Iqbal, plaintiffs-detainees filed an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), naming, inter alia, the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") as defendants. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 666, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Id. at 668-69, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (original brackets and citations to the docket entries omitted).

The Supreme Court started with a reminder "that Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior" and, thus, the plaintiffs had to "plead [facts showing] that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution." Id. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018; Robertson v. Sichel, 127 U.S. 507, 515-516, 8 S.Ct. 1286, 3 L.Ed. 203 (1888); and Dunlop v. Munroe, 11 U.S. 242, 7 Cranch 242, 3 L.Ed. 329 (1812)).

With that, the Supreme Court "turn[ed] to [the specific allegations in the plaintiffs'] complaint," which: (1) offered, as the sole actual fact upon which the plaintiffs based the aforesaid conclusions, the statement that "the FBI, [being an entity] under the [supervision of the Director], arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men as part of its investigation of the events of September 11"; and (2) was limited to the plaintiffs' circular, sophistic claim that, if the Attorney General had to be the "`principal architect' of this invidious policy," and the Director had to be "`instrumental' in adopting and executing it," then it must have meant that the Attorney General and Director knew of, condoned and agreed to creating and implementing a policy under which the jailors discriminated, beat and subjected the plaintiffs to harsh conditions. Id. at 677, 680-81, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs' conclusions, while reduced to terms loosely mimicking factual allegations, were—in essence—conclusory speculations, since the wrongs the plaintiffs suffered could have, just as well, ensued from the jailors' own elections to abusively implement the Attorney General/Director's wholly benign, non-discriminatory policy.16

Thus, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' conclusory allegations noting that, since these allegations did "not plausibly establish this [invidious policy] purpose," the plaintiffs failed to "nudge[their] claims [enough to] cross the line from conceivable to plausible." Id. at 680-81, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 682, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

Paramount here, nothing in the actual holding Iqbal suggested that supervisory officials had to be shielded from suit if a plaintiff was able to assert facts, rather than mere speculation, indicative of the supervisors' inevitable involvement in the alleged wrong.17 In harmony with the limits posed by the actual holding Iqbal, the Court of Appeals stressed that a court need not reach the issue of "supervisory liability" if the court "determine[s] that Plaintiffs . . . allege a plausible claim to relief on the basis of the supervisors' `knowledge and acquiescence . . . or any other similar theory of liability.'" Argueta v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 643 F.3d 60, 70 (3d Cir.2011).18

The claims in Argueta were building on the "arrests [that had been] made pursuant to the nationwide immigration enforcement strategy announced by . . . the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)." Id. at 63. In some locales, the goal of performing those arrests was utilized to launch a "practice of unlawful and abusive raids of immigrant homes," and "the state of New Jersey [was one of such unfortunate locales, where these unlawful raids were] conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ([']ICE[']) agents [who conducted those raids under the guise of the above-noted] nation-wide program." Id. at 62.

The Argueta plaintiffs, being "the alleged victims of [such unlawful] raids," named, as defendants, a few low-ranking ICE agents and local police officers (who, presumably, conducted the very raids at issue), as well as the ICE itself, two high-ranking officers of the DHS/ICE situated in Washington DC ("DC") and, in addition, the current and former Directors of the New Jersey ICE office. Id. at 62-63. As the plaintiffs in Iqbal, the Argueta plaintiffs: (a) alleged the factual events that implicated only the low-ranking officers; and then (b) attempted to stitch, via the statistics of raids and arrests, those facts to the plaintiffs' wholly factless, conclusory conjecture disguised as legal claims against the DC officials/local Directors.19

Much like the Supreme Court in Iqbal, the Court of Appeals in Argueta refused to qualify the plaintiffs' self-serving conjecture as facts envisioned by Rules 8(a) and 12(b), i.e., as actual facts that plausibly showed the DC officials/local Directors' knowledge and acquiescence:

Id. at 75-76, 643 F.3d 60 (citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis supplied).

Thus, on the one hand, Twombly, Iqbal and Argueta indicated that a plaintiff's conjecture as to the causal link between the alleged wrong and a particular defendant is facially insufficient to support a constitutional claim. Accord L.A. County, 131 S.Ct. at 451 ("Congress may have thought that it lacked the power to impose that kind of indirect liability" in constitutional tort matters). On the other hand, these decisions also indicated, albeit in dicta, that non-speculative factual allegations evincing a sufficiently exact causal link between a supervising officer and the alleged wrong would state a plausible challenge for the purposes of Rules 8(a) and 12(b).20

A recent Court of Appeals' decision in Thomas v. Cumberland Cty., 749 F.3d 217 (3d Cir.2014), supports this conclusion. There, a prisoner filed a § 1983 suit based on his being attacked by other inmates. See id. at 219. "The attack occurred after a several-minute long verbal argument between [the prisoner] and a group of [other] inmates in the presence of corrections officers" who "could tell that a fight was imminent" but did not interfere until the prisoner suffered an injury that "left [him] with no sight in one eye." Id. at 219-20. The prisoner asserted that the municipality and policymakers at the prison were liable for his injury in light of their "failure to . . . train corrections officers in conflict de-escalation and intervention techniques." Id. at 219.

Noting that the parties did "not challenge the . . . constitutional violation" of the prisoner's rights, see id. at 223, the Court focused on the sufficiency of the causal link between "the officers' failure to take reasonable measures to protect [the prisoner],'" id. (citation and quotation marks omitted), and the municipality and supervising officials' administrative decisions that led to "failure to provide pre-service training on conflict de-escalation and intervention": in order to determine whether "this deficiency in training caused [the prisoner's] injury." Id. While mentioning that "[a] municipality [or supervising officials could] not be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of [their] employees on a theory of respondeat superior," the Thomas Court reminded that "liability is imposed when the policy . . . itself [is such that it] violates the Constitution or when the policy . . ., while not unconstitutional itself, is the `moving force' behind the constitutional tort." Id. (quoting Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp., 946 F.2d 1017, 1027 (3d Cir.1991)) (internal quotation omitted).

With that, the Court of Appeals explained:

Thomas, 749 F.3d at 222-26 (original brackets omitted).

Hence, Thomas indicates that a supervising official is liable for the wrong resulting from his/her decisions if those decisions employed a design that plausibly suggested the supervising official's deliberate indifference to a risk of the very wrong that occurred, i.e., those decisions were, de facto, the moving force that triggered the inevitable chain of events which, in turn, produced the constitutional tort at issue.21

Nothing bars a plaintiff from establishing such design by asserting the facts qualifying as circumstantial evidence.22 Moreover, the language of Iqbal suggests that factual allegations may be framed in their entirety in terms of "circumstantial evidence," i.e., no plaintiff must catch the supervising defendant red-handed in order to state a viable claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 ("A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged") (emphasis supplied, citation omitted); accord W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 39, 242-43 (5th ed.1984) ("As long as the conclusion is a matter of mere speculation or conjecture, . . . it becomes the duty of the court to [dismiss the claim.] This does not mean, however, that there must be in every case eye-witnesses of the defendant's conduct. . . . Any . . . fact[] may be proved by circumstantial evidence. This is evidence of . . . a set of facts[] from which the existence of the fact to be determined may reasonably be inferred. . . . Like any other evidence, . . . it may be so unconvincing as to be quite worthless, or it may be . . . overwhelming. The gist of it . . . is the inference . . . . This must be based on the evidence given, together with a sufficient background of human experience to justify the conclusion"); cf. McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 530 (3d Cir.2009) ("`Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense'") (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64, 129 S.Ct. 1937).

IV. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST A SUPERVISING OFFICIAL

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that "[n]o State [would] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 1. This due process guarantee has a procedural and a substantive component; the former bars punishment without the due process of law while the latter protects fundamental rights so "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" that "neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed." Palko v. Conn., 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937); see also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (substantive due process protects the inmates' fundamental rights and, in addition, guards the inmates against other government conduct so egregious that it "shocks the conscience").

It is under this umbrella principle the Supreme Court articulated the right of confined mentally retarded persons to receive mental treatment, see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 316, 319 and 322, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982), and it is under this principle the New Jersey legislature enacted the NJSVPA and the Court of Appeals adjudicated the claims in Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3d Cir.2002).

There, the Court of Appeals held that, since the New Jersey's statutory scheme at issue was predicated on the inmate's response to treatment, the statutory regime created a fundamental due process liberty interest, meaning that denial of adequate mental treatment was conscience-shocking.23 See Leamer, 288 F.3d at 545-47 ("We have . . . clarif[ied] the liberty interest that is at stake here. . . . As we have indicated, the due process right to treatment here was not a matter of [the inmate's] health or well-being. Rather, the indifference analysis [here] must focus on the challenged abuse of power by officials in denying [the inmate] the treatment regimen that . . . was necessary in order for his condition to improve, and thus for him to advance toward release").24

The issue of what treatment is required is both fact-specific and claim-specific, since an alleged deficiency might implicate concerns purely of medical malpractice, i.e., negligence not actionable under § 1983. See DeJesus v. Corr. Med. Servs., 574 Fed.Appx. 66, 70 (3d Cir.2014) ("When distilled to their core, [the plaintiff's claim] sound[s] in negligence or malpractice. . . . Claims of negligence or medical malpractice do not constitute deliberate indifference"). That said, when a prescribed medical treatment is denied, reduced or changed for non-medical reasons, including financial, administrative or logistical, the so-denied/reduced/changed treatment suggests an act of deliberate indifference and amounts to a violation of both procedural and substantive due process with regard to those mental patients whose sole hope for release hinges on obtaining their prescribed mental therapy. See Leamer, 288 F.3d at 545-47; accord Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 68 (3d Cir.1993) (relying on Monmouth Cty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3rd Cir.1987), for the observation that a claim of "deliberate indifference" does not require a showing of complete failure/refusal to provide medical care, since such claim "could exist in a variety of different circumstances"); White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 113 (3d Cir.1990) ("`[the complaint asserts that the doctor] interfered with modalities of treatment prescribed by other physicians, including specialists, even though these modalities of treatment had proven satisfactory.' The. . . complaint, fairly read, suggests that the doctor deliberately treated [the inmate] with an inappropriate drug for no valid [medical] reason. This is sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs [even though the] complaint does not allege that the [inmate's condition] grew worse as a result [since] it does allege . . . that [the inmate] suffered anxiety. [W]e are not prepared to hold that inflicting mental anxiety alone cannot [ever amount to a constitutional violation]").25

Reading this test in the context of supervisory officials' liability, the Supreme Court upheld a finding that inmates were entitled to relief from supervisors where: (a) the inmates were denied the needed/prescribed mental/medical treatment by subordinate prison officers; but (b) the subordinates had to operate under the circumstances resulting from the decisions made by their supervisors who had and, thus, could dispense to their subordinates only the financial, physical and human resources insufficient for the subordinates to properly perform the prodigious task of providing proper care to the inmates; and, therefore, (c) these subordinates lacked a meaningful ability to properly perform their duties toward the inmates. See Plata, 131 S.Ct. at 1928-29.26

The Plata Court stressed that

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted).27

Reading Leamer, Napoleon and Durmer jointly with the rationale of Plata, this Court concludes that, if: (a) supervising officials make systemwide determinations; (b) these determinations become the moving force behind the circumstances under which the subordinate officers effectively have no choice but to deny/reduce/change an inmate's prescribed medical/mental treatment for non-medical reasons; and (c) such denial/reduction/change in prescribed treatment was foreseeable under the systemwide determinations the supervisors made, then the supervisors are liable to the inmate for his injuries caused by such denial/reduction/change in prescribed treatment, provided that the inmate draws the requisite "causal link" between the supervisors' decisions and his injury—by stating facts plausibly establishing the supervisors' deliberate indifference to the risk of the inmate's injury.28

A recent decision by the Court of Appeals details the precise causal link the inmate must draw to plausibly plead such a claim. See Barkes, 766 F.3d 307.

In Barkes, the Court of Appeals examined the liability of prison administrators as to the "claim that serious deficiencies in the provision of medical care . . . resulted in an inmate's suicide," id. at 310, and noted:

Id. at 316-20 (parenthetical clarifications and citations omitted).29

Read against the holdings of Barkes and Sample, the guidance in Plata, Iqbal, Barkes, Argueta, Learner, Napoleon and Durmer indicates that a plaintiff states a plausible circumstantial-evidence medical care claim against defendants-supervisors if:

With the so-distilled test in mind, this Court now turn to the parties' positions at bar.31

V. DISCUSSION

A. Sufficiency of Plaintiffs' Allegations

Being qualified as an SVP "[a]s a result of the [mental] evaluation [he] received, in which he was diagnosed as having a disorder requiring treatment," Thomas asserts that he began and continuously kept receiving ten hours of individual and group therapy per week: for a decade. Thomas, Civil Action No. 10-5026, Docket Entry No. 9, at 7-11. Thomas' allegations neither state nor suggest that such amount of weekly therapy was, somehow, unmoored to Thomas' initial and/or later-conducted professional mental evaluations and resulting prescriptions.32

According to Thomas' allegations, his prescribed amount of therapy was first reduced down to one-third (right after he arrived to the STU and without any mental health evaluation finding that Thomas' medical needs would be better or equally well served by such reduced therapy), then his treatment got changed to a lower-level of advancement (again, without any mental health evaluation finding that Thomas' medical needs would be better or equally well served by such lower-level therapy), and finally all his mental treatment became denied: because Thomas was placed in the SHU, and the SHU began undergoing construction works.

In light of these well-pled facts, there appears to be no doubt that Thomas stated a plausible procedural due process claim under Durmer, Napoleon and Lanzaro, and—under Leamer—he also stated a plausible substantive due process challenge.

The dispute at hand, therefore, is limited solely to sufficiency of the causal link between the deprivation Thomas suffered and the named Defendants.33

Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs failed to draw that link since Defendants, being high-ranking supervising officers, played no role in Plaintiffs' day-to-day affairs. This Court disagrees. The inquiry here turns on the inferred nexus between: (a) Defendants' systemwide administrative decisions that were the moving force behind the operational regime created at the EJSP STU/SHU; and (b) the denial of (or reduction/change in) Plaintiffs' mental treatment for non-medical reasons while in confinement at the EJSP STU/SHU.34

Had Plaintiffs, being prescribed three sessions of three-to-four hours of dialysis a week, been subjected to a change in their dialysis regimen and started receiving less than a third of that treatment (or no treatment at all) as a result of Defendants' systemwide decisions that would require (or leave no meaningful choice for) the rank-and-file subordinates to reduce/eliminate Plaintiffs' dialysis treatment, the causal link between Defendants' decisions and Plaintiffs' injuries would become obvious as soon as Plaintiffs' blood pressure skyrocketed, their red blood cell count plummeted, they would develop nausea, respiratory problems, etc. Defendants' systemwide decisions would predestine Plaintiffs to suffer, to have their kidneys injured and to die from kidney failure: graphically and morbidly illustrating the harm Defendants' decisions caused, and Defendants' deliberate indifference to the risk of that very harm.

The same logic applies here.

Here, as a result of Executive Order 118 and the New Jersey courts' rulings, Defendants necessarily had to make a series of systemwide decisions as to the facility for Plaintiffs' housing. See County of Hudson, 2009 WL 1361546, at *1-6, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, at *2-16; accord N.J. Stat. Ann., 30:4-27.34. Being placed in the circumstances under which they had to make the decision to house Plaintiffs at the EJSP STU, i.e., at the very facility which they already twice considered and rejected in light of physical, financial and logistical constraints, see id., Defendants either: (a) knew they were exposing Plaintiffs to the risk of a scenario where, for non-medical reasons, Plaintiffs would be unable to obtain the full amount of their prescribed mental treatment (and, potentially, no treatment at all); or (b) recklessly ignore that risk.

Yet, Defendants decided to proceed with placing Plaintiffs at the STU and, later, with placing Thomas at the SHU. It could reasonably be inferred that this chain of events shows that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the risk of denial/reduction/change in Plaintiffs' mental care for non-medical reasons. While this Court is mindful that Defendants might have made their decisions without any malevolence, much like the high-ranking "prison wardens and health care managers" in Plata who "[e]very day [had to] make the difficult decision as to which of [their obligations as to inmates' care] they [would] fail to comply with because of staff shortages" and other financial/logistical constraints, 131 S.Ct. at 1928, such absence of malice is of no relevance to this Court's deliberate indifference analysis conducted at this juncture.35 Accord Barkes, 766 F.3d at 325 ("[D]eliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence, the cases are also clear that it is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result. Deliberate indifference falls somewhere between the poles of negligence at one end and purpose or knowledge at the other") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

The facts before this Court plausibly establish that Plaintiffs met all four elements of the Sample's test. Defendants' own decisions and acts, pled by Plaintiffs and adjudicated in County of Hudson, causally connected Defendants to the denial/reduction/change in Plaintiffs' mental care for non-medical reasons. See Barkes, 766 F.3d 307; accord In re NAHC, Inc. Sec. Litig., 306 F.3d 1314, 1331 (3d Cir.2002) (addressing Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)); Jackson v. Broad. Music, Inc., 2006 WL 250524, at *7, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3960, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2006) ("the court may take judicial notice of public records and of `admissions in pleadings and other documents in the public record filed by a party in other judicial proceedings") (citations omitted). That conclusion applies to all Defendants, short of Christie and Doe, i.e., it applies to Lanigan, Velez, Poag, Main, Adams, Ottino and John Main ("DOC Defendants"), since the decisions and acts at issue, by their very nature, could not have possibly escaped the scope of the DOC Defendants' personal responsibilities. See N.J. Stat. Ann., 30:4-27.34 (expressly obligating the high-ranking officials of the Department of Corrections, Department of Human Services and Department of Mental Health Services to provide for "the operations of [the] facility designated for the [SVPs'] custody," to "provide . . . for treatment [of SVPs]," to "participate in . . . oversight" of these operations and treatment, and to "appropriately tailor [the facilities and treatment to] the specific needs of [SVPs]").

In contrast, two Defendants named here do not appear implicated in the decisions or acts at issue. One is Dow, and another is Christie. While Plaintiffs allege that Dow supervised the staff at the Attorney General Office that litigated on behalf of the State during Plaintiffs' civil commitment proceedings (conducted years before the first deadline of the SVPs' transfer out of Kearny was stipulated between the County and the DOC), nothing in Plaintiffs' pleading or in the state court's findings made in County of Hudson, 2009 WL 1361546, 2009 N.J.Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1188, could fairly be read as a fact stitching Plaintiffs' injuries to Dow. Thus, claims against Dow will be dismissed with prejudice.36

Analogously, as to Christie, Plaintiffs failed to "nudge [their] claims [enough to] cross the line from conceivable to plausible." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680-81, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Simply put, there is no basis for this Court to infer that Christie partook in any decision-making processes related to Plaintiffs' housing at the EJSP STU (or Thomas' placement in the SHU), or in any decisions related to the preparation/construction/operational regime of the STU/SHU. In fact, this Court cannot rule out that Christie was and still is wholly unaware of those decisions. Therefore, Plaintiffs' claims against Christie will too be dismissed.37

Furthermore, Plaintiffs' claims asserting overall inadequacy of the mental treatment administered by the DOC, be it as to all SVPs or as to Plaintiffs in their capacity as members of the SVP population, and be it as to Kearny or as to the EJSP STU, will be dismissed with prejudice, as barred by the Alves Settlement. See Alves, 559 Fed.Appx. 151; accord Blunt, 767 F.3d 247. Finally, Plaintiffs' broad allegations that their "treatment [is] now provided by social workers and recreation staff rather than by psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers [unlike] at Kearny," Thomas, Civil Action No. 10-5026, Docket Entry No. 26, at 11; accord Nash, Docket Entry No. 22, at 9-10, will be dismissed, albeit without prejudice, as insufficiently pled. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680-81, 129 S.Ct. 1937.38 Hence, the only claims sufficiently pled—as of now—are Plaintiffs' individualized allegations raised against the DOC Defendants with regard to denial of, or reduction/change in, Plaintiffs' prescribed mental care for non-medical reasons.

B. Injunctive Relief

Defendants' initial position that Plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief was marred by confusion. Plaintiffs' re-briefing prompted Defendants to alter their argument after Plaintiffs' supplemented pleadings clarified that

Docket Entry No. 26, at 25-25.

Conceding Plaintiffs' legal point as to what the proper inquiry is and that Plaintiffs did not seek a preliminary injunctive measure, Defendants now contend that "[P]laintiffs cannot succeed on the merits" since all Plaintiffs' claims are facially meritless. Docket Entry No. 28, at 18 ("[P]laintiffs' . . . substantive claims do not state a claim for violation of a constitutional right"). However, as the discussion provided supra illustrates, this Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently pled their claims based on Defendants' deliberate indifference to the risk of denial/reduction/change in Plaintiffs' mental care for non-medical reasons. Therefore, Defendants' contention is incorrect.

That said, Defendants' gracious statement that, "[i]f this Court disagree[s with Defendants' position that all Plaintiffs' claims are facially meritless], Defendants acknowledge that [this case should proceed further, and] discovery [would be needed] to resolve the dispute," id. is sufficient and, therefore, this point need not be hammered at by this Court.39

Correspondingly, Defendants' application for dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims seeking injunctive relief will be denied, without more, as to all Defendants short of Dow and Christie.40 The DOC Defendants may renew that application during the latter stages of these litigation, provided that the facts developed would warrant such an application.

C. Qualified Immunity

The test governing the defense of qualified immunity is long-established:

Barkes, 766 F.3d at 325-26 (brackets, ellipses and parenthetical explanations omitted).

Under this standard, the DOC Defendants' qualified immunity argument is halfhearted at best. The substantive issues implicated here are scalpel-narrow and have been subject to extensive "practical guidance" that gave the DOC Defendants "fair warning" for the period ranging from more than a decade, under Leamer, to longer-than-a-quarter-century: under Lanzaro, Napoleon and Durmer. Nothing in the principles clearly established by those decisions could have led the DOC Defendants to believe that denying, reducing or changing Plaintiffs' prescribed mental treatment for non-medical reasons would be anything but a violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and there should have been not a shred of doubt in the DOC Defendants' minds that such violation would qualify as "conscience shocking" in addition to being an imposition of punishment without due process. And, under Monell, Sample and Whetzel, as well as under Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 353 (3d Cir.2005), the DOC Defendants had to know, for thirty, twenty, ten and five years, respectively, that legal liability would attach to them for the decisions/acts they would make with deliberate indifference to the risk of constitutional harm those decisions/acts would entail. Hence, stripped of all niceties, the DOC Defendants' qualified immunity argument turns on their self-serving misreading of Iqbal, i.e., on their claim that supervisory officials are necessarily shielded from suit by a plaintiff separated from those supervisors by a few ranks of subordinates, since that the plaintiff cannot be in privy with the particularities of the supervisors' operations and decision-making processes and, hence, cannot plead those particularities.

Although, as detailed supra, such self-serving misreading of Iqbal has become common among defendants holding supervisory positions and even persuaded a few jurists, see Barkes, 766 F.3d at 318 ("Iqbal has . . . [led some jurists to] believe [that it] abolish[ed] supervisory liability in its entirety"), that misreading is not the law and never was the law. Thus, this misreading cannot entitle Defendants to qualified immunity.

Iqbal did not involve a change in the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment regime, nor did Iqbal eliminate the "practical guidance" these bodies of law provided to the DOC Defendants, "fairly warning" them that they could be liable for their decisions and acts evincing deliberate indifference to the risk of harm resulting from denial/reduction/change in Plaintiffs' prescribed mental treatment for non-medical reasons. Not a single statement in Iqbal could have led the DOC Defendants to believe that they would be entitled to violate clearly established sue process law because the Supreme Court offered a clarification as to the pleading requirement of Rule 8(a), or because the DOC Defendants held supervisory positions, or because Plaintiffs—not being in privy with the DOC Defendants' exact operations—could not plead the particularities of the DOC Defendants' decision-making processes or acts. Cf. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937; see also supra, this Opinion, note 22. Nothing in Plaintiffs' pleading suggests that they are suing the DOC Defendants "purely upon the acts of others" or "on the basis of . . . an employer-employee relationship [between the DOC Defendants and employed] tortfeasor[s]." Monell, 436 U.S. at 692, 98 S.Ct. 2018. The DOC Defendants are the only plausibly-pled tortfeasors here; there no others.

Granted that the governing "body of precedent places [Plaintiffs' claims asserting denial/reduction/change in prescribed medical care for non-medical reasons] `beyond debate,'" id. at 329 (quoting al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. at 2083), this Court concludes that, at this juncture, the DOC Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Hence, Plaintiffs' claims asserting denial/ reduction/change in prescribed medical care for non-medical reasons will proceed to further litigation.41

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Rule 12(b) motions will be granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motions to dismiss will be granted as to Plaintiffs' claims asserting overall insufficiency of the mental treatment provided to all STU SVPs (or to Plaintiffs in their capacity as members of the SVP population confined at the EJSP STU or at the STU's SHU). Those claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Analogously, Defendants' motions will be granted as to all Plaintiffs' claims raised against Dow, and those claims will too be dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motions will also be granted as to Plaintiffs' claims raised against Christie and as to Plaintiffs' challenges asserting that their mental treatment has been administered by social workers and/or recreation staff, rather than by psychiatrists/psychologists. Those claims, however, will be dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiffs will be allowed to re-plead these claims by asserting their facts, if any, showing: (a) Christie's personal involvement in the particular decisions that caused Plaintiffs' injuries; and/or (b) that Plaintiff's prescribed mental treatment was such that all of it/part of it had to be administered by psychiatrists/psychologists. Defendants' motions will be denied as to Plaintiffs' claims raised against the DOC Defendants with regard to the DOC Defendants' systemwide decisions that were the moving force behind the operational regime at the EJSP STU/SHU, which caused denial of and/or reduction/change in Plaintiffs' prescribed mental treatment for non-medical reasons.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.