Full opinion text
JON 0. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. These interlocutory appeals present several issues concerning the defense of qualified immunity in the aftermath of the events of 9/11. Several current and former government officials from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) appeal from the September 27, 2005, Order of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (John Glee-son, District Judge) denying in part their motions to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity. See Elmaghraby v. Ashcroft, No. 04 CV 1409, 2005 WL 2375202 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2005) (“Dist.Ct.op.”). Plaintiff-Appellee Javaid Iqbal alleges that the Defendants-Appellants took a series of unconstitutional actions against him in connection with his confinement under harsh conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, after separation from the general prison population. We conclude that the defense of qualified immunity, to the extent rejected by the District Court, cannot be sustained as to any Defendants at this preliminary stage of the litigation except as to the claim of violation of procedural due process rights, and we therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. Background Parties. Iqbal is a Muslim Pakistani currently residing in Pakistan. Iqbal’s co-plaintiff was Ehad Elmaghraby, a Muslim Egyptian. After Judge Gleeson’s ruling on the motions to dismiss, the United States settled Elmaghraby’s claims by payment of $300,000. Four groups of Defendants have filed appeals from Judge Gleeson’s order. The first group consists of former Attorney General John Ashcroft and current FBI Director Robert Mueller. The second group consists of Michael Rolince, former Chief of the FBI’s International Terrorism Operations Section, Counterterrorism Division, and Kenneth Maxwell, former Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office (the “FBI Defendants”). The third group consists of former BOP officials: Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, former BOP Director; David Rar-din, former Director of the Northeast Region of the Bureau of Prisons; and Michael Cooksey, former Assistant Director for Correctional Programs of the Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP Defendants”). The fourth appeal was filed by Dennis Hasty, former MDC Warden. Other Defendants include Michael Zenk, MDC Warden at the time the lawsuit was filed, other MDC staff, and the United States. Factual allegations. The complaint alleges the following facts, which are assumed to be true for purposes of the pending appeals, as we are required to do in reviewing a ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653, 657 (2d Cir.1995). The Plaintiff was arrested by agents of the FBI and the Immigration and Naturalization Service on November 2, 2001. Following his arrest, he was detained in the MDC’s general prison population until January 8, 2002, when he was removed from the general prison population and assigned to a special section of the MDC known as the Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit (“ADMAX SHU”), where he remained until he was reassigned to the general prison population at the end of July 2002. On this appeal, we consider only claims concerning the Plaintiffs separation from the general prison population and confinement thereafter in the ADMAX SHU. We do not consider the legality of his arrest or his initial detention in the MDC. The complaint further alleges that in the months after 9/11, the FBI arrested and detained thousands of Arab Muslim men as part of its investigation into the events of 9/11. The fact of their detention, its duration, and the conditions of confinement depended on whether those arrested were classified as “of high interest.” Many of these men, including the Plaintiff, were classified as “of high interest” solely because of their race, religion, and national origin and not because of any involvement in terrorism. In the New York City area, all Arab Muslim men arrested on criminal or immigration charges while the FBI was investigating a 9/11 lead were classified as “of high interest.” The FBI Defendants were responsible for making these classifications for detainees arrested in the New York City area, including the Plaintiff. The complaint further alleges that Ashcroft and Mueller approved a policy of holding detainees “of high interest” in highly restrictive conditions until they were “cleared” by the FBI. In early October, BOP Defendant Cooksey, with the knowledge of BOP Defendant Sawyer, directed that all detainees “of high interest” be held in the most restrictive conditions possible. FBI officials were aware that the BOP was relying on this classification to hold detainees in restrictive conditions. The complaint further alleges that soon after 9/11, the MDC created within the MDC an ADMAX SHU, the BOP’s most restrictive type of confinement, to house the detainees “of high interest.” The procedures for handling ADMAX SHU detainees were developed by MDC staff, at the request of Defendant Hasty. ADMAX SHU detainees were permitted to leave their cells only one hour each day, and all legal and social interactions were non-contact. Movement outside their cells required handcuffs and leg irons and four-officer escorts. Movement inside their cells was monitored by video cameras. For many weeks, the detainees were subject to a communications blackout. The complaint further alleges that the MDC did not conduct any review of the detainees’ segregation in the ADMAX SHU. Instead, the detainees remained in the ADMAX SHU until the FBI approved their release to the general population. As a result, numerous detainees were held in the ADMAX SHU for extended periods of time even though there was no evidence linking them to terrorism. The complaint further alleges that the Plaintiff was transferred to the ADMAX SHU on January 8, 2002. He was kept in solitary confinement. Until March, the lights in his cell were left on almost 24 hours a day, and MDC staff deliberately turned on air conditioning during the winter and heating during the summer. MDC staff left the Plaintiff in the open-air recreation area for hours when it was raining and then turned on the air conditioner when he returned to his cell. Whenever the Plaintiff was removed from his cell, he was handcuffed and shackled. The Plaintiff was not provided with adequate food and lost 40 pounds while in custody. MDC staff called him, among other things, a “terrorist” and a “Muslim killer.” The complaint further alleges that the Plaintiff was brutally beaten by MDC guards on two occasions: upon his transfer to the ADMAX SHU in January 2002 and again in March. Following the March beating, the Plaintiff was denied medical care for two weeks even though he was in excruciating pain. He was also subjected to daily strip and body-cavity searches. The March beating was prompted by the Plaintiffs protestations to a fourth consecutive strip and body-cavity search in the same room. MDC staff interfered with the Plaintiffs prayers, routinely confiscated his Koran, and refused to permit him to participate in Friday prayer services. They also interfered with the Plaintiffs communications with his defense attorney, for example, by disconnecting the phone if the Plaintiff complained about his conditions of confinement and delaying his receipt of legal mail for up to two months. The Plaintiff pled guilty on April 22, 2002, and was sentenced on September 17, 2002. He was released from the ADMAX SHU at the end of July 2002, after pleading guilty but before sentencing. Judge Gleeson considered the Plaintiff to be a pretrial detainee throughout his entire time in the ADMAX SHU. Dist. Ct. op. at *15 n. 14. The Plaintiff was released from the MDC on January 15, 2003, and thereafter was removed to Pakistan (a fact not in the complaint but undisputed). Litigation in the District Court. The Plaintiff (and his co-plaintiff) commenced this action in May 2004. Their complaint asserted twenty-one causes of action, including both statutory claims and constitutional tort claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The causes of action, and the Defendants against whom they were asserted, are set forth in the margin. Ashcroft and Mueller, the FBI Defendants, the BOP Defendants, Hasty, the MDC Warden, and an MDC medical assistant filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that (1) a Bivens action was precluded by “special factors,” (2) they were protected by qualified immunity, (3) the supervisory defendants were not alleged to have sufficient personal involvement, and (4) Ashcroft, Mueller, the FBI Defendants, and the BOP Defendants were not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. In addition, the United States moved to be substituted as the defendant on the ATCA claim (Count 21) and for dismissal of that claim. With a few exceptions, Judge Gleeson denied the motions to dismiss. He first rejected Ashcroft’s argument that “special factors,” namely the post-9/11 context, precluded a Bivens action in this case. See Dist. Ct. op. at *14. Judge Gleeson then turned to the substance of the Plaintiffs Bivens claims. He denied Hasty’s motion to dismiss the conditions of confinement claims (Counts One and Eight), concluding that the Plaintiff had adequately alleged (1) illegitimate reasons for the conditions of his confinement and (2) Hasty’s personal involvement. See id. at *15-*17. He also found adequate allegations of Hasty’s personal involvement in the claims of excessive force (Counts Three and Four), interference with the Plaintiffs right to counsel (Count Five), unreasonable strip searches (Count Nine), and interference with the Plaintiffs exercise of religion (Count Ten). See id. at *22, *27, *28. However, he found the allegations insufficient to support the personal involvement of.BOP Defendant Sawyer in the unreasonable strip searches and dismissed this claim against her. See id. at *27. With respect to the procedural due process claim (Count Two), Judge Gleeson found that the Plaintiff had alleged both a deprivation of a liberty interest that involved “atypical and significant” hardships compared to the conditions in the general prison population and the absence of any due process protections, that the Plaintiffs right was clearly established, and that he could not assess the objective reasonableness of the Defendants’ actions as a matter of law at this stage of the litigation. See id. at *18-*20. He also found that the Plaintiff had adequately alleged the personal involvement of all the Defendants, observing that “the post-September 11 context provide[d] support for [the Plaintiffs’ assertions that [the Defendants were involved in creating and/or implementing the detention policy under which [the Pjlaintiffs were confined without due process.” See id. at *20-*21. Finally, with respect to the procedural due process claim, he limited the first stage of discovery to the issue of the Defendants’ personal involvement in the alleged denial of due process. See id. at *21. With respect to the Plaintiffs Bivens claims of race and religious discrimination (Counts 11 and 12), Judge Gleeson ruled that the Plaintiffs allegations that he was confined in significantly harsher conditions solely because of his race and religion were sufficient to state a cause of action. See id. at *29. He also concluded that the Plaintiff had adequately alleged the personal involvement of Ashcroft and Mueller, the FBI Defendants, and Hasty. See id. However, because the Plaintiff had not alleged that the BOP Defendants were involved in the challenged classification in any way, Judge Gleeson concluded that the Plaintiff had not alleged the personal involvement of the BOP Defendants, and he dismissed these claims against them. See id. Turning to the Plaintiffs statutory claims, Judge Gleeson dismissed the RFRA claims against all the Defendants, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that RFRA applied to federal government officials. See id. at *30-*31. He also dismissed the ATCA claim after first having substituted the United States for the individual defendants. See id. at *34-*35. Finally, he denied the motions to dismiss the section 1985(3) conspiracy claims, rejecting the Defendants’ arguments that it was not clearly established that section 1985 applied to federal officers and concluding that the Plaintiff had adequately alleged the Defendants’ personal involvement, except with respect to the allegation that the BOP Defendants had conspired to subject the Plaintiff to unreasonable strip searches. See id. at *32-*33. Discussion The Defendants appeal from the District Court’s order denying their motions to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity. Their arguments with respect to qualified immunity fall into several broad categories: (1) the Plaintiffs allegations do not allege the violation of a clearly established right, (2) do not allege sufficient personal involvement of the Defendants in the challenged actions, (3) are too conclusory to overcome a qualified immunity defense, and (4) the Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable. Permeating the Defendants’ assertion of a qualified immunity defense is the contention that, however the defense might be adjudicated in normal circumstances, the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack created a context in which the defense must be assessed differently and, from their standpoint, favorably. In addition, Ashcroft, Mueller, and FBI Defendant Rolince seek review of the denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the issue of personal jurisdiction is available for review on this interlocutory appeal because the issue is inextricably intertwined with that of qualified immunity. Because many of the Defendants’ grounds for asserting an immunity defense overlap -with respect to several of the Plaintiffs allegations, it will be convenient to consider separately each of the Plaintiffs causes of action with respect to the one or more Defendants against whom it is asserted, rather than consider separately the claims asserted against each Defendant. Before turning to each of the Plaintiffs allegations, we first consider the legal standards that apply to nearly all of the Plaintiffs claims and to most of the grounds on which the Defendants assert their qualified immunity defense. I. General Principles of Qualified Immunity (a) Standard of review. When a district court denies qualified immunity on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “we review the district court’s denial de novo, accepting as true the material facts alleged in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs’ favor.” Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged School District, 239 F.3d 246, 250 (2d Cir.2001). (b) Appealability. A district court’s denial of qualified immunity is appealable as a collateral order if it turns on an issue of law. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Thus, a defendant may appeal a district court’s ruling denying qualified immunity when, if a plaintiffs allegations are assumed to be true, the only question is whether the alleged conduct violated a clearly established right. See Locurto v. Safir, 264 F.3d 154, 163 (2d Cir.2001). (c) The qualified immunity defense. Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit and not just a defense to liability. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). The first step in a qualified immunity inquiry is to determine whether the alleged facts demonstrate that a defendant violated a constitutional right. See id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151; see also Scott v. Harris, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1774 & n. 4, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). If the allegations show that a defendant violated a constitutional right, the next step is to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the challenged action — that is, “whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151. A defendant will be entitled to qualified immunity if either (1) his actions did not violate clearly established law or (2) it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that his actions did not violate clearly established law. See Johnson, 239 F.3d at 250. In determining whether a right was clearly established, the court must assess whether “the contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear in the context of the alleged violation such that a reasonable official would understand that what he [was] doing violate[d] that right.” Id. at 250-51 (internal quotation marks omitted). To that end, the court should consider what a reasonable officer in the defendant’s position would have known about the lawfulness of his conduct, “not what a lawyer would learn or intuit from researching case law.” Id. at 251 (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, the court need not identify “legal precedent addressing an identical factual scenario” to conclude that the right is clearly established. Id.; see also Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69, 84 (2d Cir.2000) (noting that a law is “clearly established” so long as a ruling on the issue is “clearly foreshadowfed]” by this Circuit’s decisions). (d) Personal involvement. Many of the Defendants claim qualified immunity on the ground that the Plaintiff has failed to allege their personal involvement in the challenged actions. All of the appealing Defendants are supervisory officials. The personal involvement of a supervisor may be established by showing that he (1) directly participated in the violation, (2) failed to remedy the violation after being informed of it by report or appeal, (3) created a policy or custom under which the violation occurred, (4) was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the violation, or (5) was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others by failing to act on information that constitutional rights were being violated. See Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995) (discussing section 1983 liability). Although a lack of personal involvement may be grounds for dismissing a claim on the merits (a ruling that would not be subject to an interlocutory appeal), such a lack is also relevant to a defense of qualified immunity because it goes to the question of whether a defendant’s actions violated a clearly established right. See McCullough v. Wyandanch Union Free School District, 187 F.3d 272, 280 (2d Cir.1999) (“Where there is a total absence of evidence of [a violation], there is no basis on which to conclude that the defendant seeking qualified immunity violated clearly established law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[0]ur task is to consider whether, as a matter of law, the factual allegations and all reasonable inferences therefrom are insufficient to establish the required showing of personal involvement.” Johnson, 239 F.3d at 255. (e) Pleading requirements. The parties dispute the extent to which a plaintiff must plead specific facts to overcome a defense of qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Although most of the Defendants disclaim requiring the Plaintiff to meet a heightened pleading standard, beyond the requirement of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), that a complaint “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests,” see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), all the Defendants make the somewhat similar argument that “conclusory allegations” will not suffice to withstand a qualified immunity defense, especially with respect to allegations of supervisory involvement, racial and/or religious animus, or conspiracy. BOP Defendant Cooksey explicitly urges us to adopt a heightened pleading standard in Bivens actions. The pleading standard to overcome a qualified immunity defense appears to be an unsettled question in this Circuit. Four Supreme Court opinions provide guidance, although the guidance they provide is not readily harmonized. In Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993), the Court rejected a heightened pleading standard in a civil rights action alleging municipal liability, applying instead only the traditional requirement of “ ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Id. at 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). In reaching this conclusion, the Court distinguished between municipalities’ immunity from respondeat superior liability and government officials’ qualified immunity from suit. See id. at 166, 113 S.Ct. 1160. Arguably, this distinction could permit requiring a plaintiff to satisfy a heightened pleading standard of a cause of action in order to overcome a government official’s defense of qualified immunity. However, the Court’s opinion in Leatherman suggests that heightened pleading standards are never permissible except when authorized by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160 (noting that Rule 9(b) “do[es] not include among the enumerated actions any reference to complaints alleging municipal liability under § 1983”). Indeed, the Court observed that, in the absence of amendment to Rules 8 or 9, the courts could rely only on control of discovery and summary judgment to “weed out unmeritorious claims.” Id. at 168-69. A more pertinent precedent is Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002), which concerned the adequacy of pleading a Title VII complaint. The Court rejected what had been this Circuit’s rule requiring employment discrimination plaintiffs to allege facts constituting a prima facie case of employment discrimination. See id. at 515, 122 S.Ct. 992. The Court again emphasized that the judicially imposed heightened pleading standard conflicted with Rule 8(a) and that a heightened pleading standard could be attained only “by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Leatherman and especially Swierkiew-icz — -with their insistence that courts cannot impose heightened pleading standards in the absence of statutory authorization— indicate that a court cannot impose a heightened pleading standard in Bivens (or other civil rights) actions against individual officials, a precept we have heeded since the Supreme Court’s decision in Swierkiewicz. See, e.g., Phillip v. University of Rochester, 316 F.3d 291, 298-99 (2d Cir.2003) (general allegation of racial animus); Phelps v. Kapnolas, 308 F.3d 180, 186-87 (2d Cir.2002) (general allegation of knowledge). However, a third Supreme Court case, decided between Leatherman and Swier-kiewicz, cryptically suggests that, in some circumstances, a court could require “specific, nonconclusory factual allegations” at the pleading stage in claims against government officials. In Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998), the D.C. Circuit had recognized a heightened burden of proof in cases against government officials alleging unconstitutional motive. See id. at 582-83, 118 S.Ct. 1584. The Court observed that the D.C. Circuit had adopted the heightened standard in an attempt “to address a potentially serious problem: Because an official’s state of mind is easy to allege and hard to disprove, insubstantial claims that turn on improper intent may be less amenable to summary disposition than other types of claims against government officials.” Id. at 584-85, 118 S.Ct. 1584 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the Supreme Court recognized this problem, it rejected the heightened standard of proof. The Court held that the D.C. Circuit’s rule was not compelled by either the holding or the reasoning of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). In Harlow, the Court had stated that “bare allegations of malice should not suffice to subject government officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery.” Id. at 817-18, 102 S.Ct. 2727. However, as the Court explained in Crawford-El, this statement merely concerned a plaintiffs attempt to overcome a legitimate qualified immunity defense by alleging malicious intent; this holding was irrelevant to a plaintiffs burden in alleging a constitutional violation of which improper motive is an essential element. See 523 U.S. at 588-89, 118 S.Ct. 1584. Neither did Harlow’s reasoning require a heightened burden of proof: the Court observed that there existed other mechanisms for protecting officials from unmeritorious actions, such as the requirement that the officials’ conduct violate clearly established law, the need to prove causation, and procedural protections. See id. at 590-93, 118 S.Ct. 1584. The Court acknowledged that the usual pleading standard would sometimes not preclude at least limited discovery to amplify general allegations. The Court observed that Harlow only “sought to protect officials from the costs of ‘broad-reaching’ discovery” and that limited discovery is sometimes necessary to adjudicate a qualified immunity defense. See id. at 593 n. 14, 118 S.Ct. 1584. The Court concluded by observing that “broad discretion” in the discovery process is more “useful and equitable” than categorical rules such as that of the D.C. Circuit. See id. at 601. What Crawford-El gave civil rights plaintiffs with respect to traditional notice pleading, however, it might have modified by permitting some post-complaint detailing of a claim. In discussing the procedural mechanisms available to judges in civil rights actions, at least those alleging wrongful motive, the Court observed that, before permitting discovery, a court could require a plaintiff to “put forward specific, nonconclusory factual allegations that establish improper motive causing cognizable injury in order to survive a prediscovery motion for dismissal or summary judgment.” Id. at 598, 118 S.Ct. 1584 (internal quotation marks omitted). Perhaps significantly, the Court quoted the phrase “put forward specific, nonconclusory factual allegations” from Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991), in which he had explicitly advocated a heightened pleading standard for civil rights actions requiring a showing of malice. See id. at 235-36, 111 S.Ct. 1789 (“There is tension between the rationale of Harlow and the requirement of malice, and it seems to me that the heightened pleading requirement is the most workable means to resolve it.”). The First Circuit has remarked that “[wjhatever window of opportunity [it] thought remained open after Crawford-El has been slammed shut by the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Swierkiewicz.” Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 65 (1st Cir.2004). Most Circuits appear to have rejected a heightened pleading standard. See Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 988-89 & n. 3 (8th Cir.2005) (collecting cases); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.2002) (same). Considerable uncertainty concerning the standard for assessing the adequacy of pleadings has recently been created by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). If we were to consider only a narrow view of the holding of that decision, we would not make any adjustment in our view of the applicable pleading standard. Bell Atlantic held that an allegation of parallel conduct by competitors, without more, does not suffice to plead an antitrust violation under 15 U.S.C. § 1. See id. at 1961. The Court required, in addition, “enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made.” Id. at 1965. However, the Court’s explanation for its holding indicated that it intended to make some alteration in the regime of pure notice pleading that had prevailed in the federal courts ever since Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), was decided half a century ago. The nature and extent of that alteration is not clear because the Court’s explanation contains several, not entirely consistent, signals, which we consider (not necessarily in the order set forth in the Court’s opinion). Some of these signals point toward a new and heightened pleading standard. First, the Court explicitly disavowed the oft-quoted statement in Conley of “ ‘the accepted rule that 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.’ ” Bell Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1968 (quoting Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99). Bell Atlantic asserted that this “no set of facts” language “has earned its retirement” and “is best forgotten.” Id. at 1969. Second, the Court, using a variety of phrases, indicated that more than notice of a claim is needed to allege a section 1 violation based on competitors’ parallel conduct. For example, the Court required “enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made,” id. at 1965; “enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement,” id.; “facts that are suggestive enough to render a § 1 conspiracy plausible,” id.; “allegations of parallel conduct ... placed in a context that raises a suggestion of a preceding agreement,” id. at 1966; “allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) agreement,” id.; a “plain statement” (as specified in Rule 8(a)(2)) with “enough heft” to show entitlement to relief, id.; and “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” id. at 1974, and also stated that the line “between the factually neutral and the factually suggestive ... must be crossed to enter the realm of plausible liability,” id. at 1966 n. 5, and that “the complaint warranted dismissal because it failed in toto to render plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief plausible,” id. at 1973 n. 14. Third, the Court discounted the ability of “ ‘careful case management,’ ” “to weed[ ] out early in the discovery process” “a claim just shy of a plausible entitlement.” Id. at 1967 (quoting id. at 1975 (Stevens, J., dissenting)). Fourth, the Court encapsulated its various formulations of what is required into what it labeled “the plausibility standard.” Id. at 1968. Indeed, the Court used the word “plausibility” or an adjectival or adverbial form of the word fifteen times (not counting quotations). On the other hand, some of the Court’s linguistic signals point away from a heightened pleading standard and suggest that whatever the Court is requiring in Bell Atlantic might be limited to, or at least applied most rigorously in, the context of either all section 1 allegations or perhaps only those section 1 allegations relying on competitors’ parallel conduct. First, the Court explicitly disclaimed that it was “requiring] heightened fact pleading of specifics,” id. at 1974, and emphasized the continued viability of Swierkiewicz, see id. at 1973-74, which had rejected a heightened pleading standard. See also Erickson v. Pardus, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic’s citation of Swierkiewicz). Second, although the Court faulted the plaintiffs’ complaint for alleging “merely legal conclusions” of conspiracy, Bell Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1970, it explicitly noted with approval Form 9 of the Federal Civil Rules, Complaint for Negligence, which, with respect to the ground of liability, alleges only that the defendant “negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was then crossing [an identified] highway,” Fed.R.Civ.P.App. Form 9. See Bell Atlantic, 127 S.Ct. at 1970 n. 10. The Court noted that Form 9 specifies the particular highway the plaintiff was crossing and the date and time of the accident, see id., but took no notice of the total lack of an allegation of the respects in which the defendant is alleged to have been negligent, ie., driving too fast, crossing the center line, running a traffic light or stop sign, or even generally failing to maintain a proper lookout. The adequacy of a generalized allegation of negligence in the approved Form 9 seems to weigh heavily against reading Bell Atlantic to condemn the insufficiency of all legal conclusions in a pleading, as long as the defendant is given notice of the date, time, and place where the legally vulnerable conduct occurred. Third, the Court placed heavy emphasis on the “sprawling, costly, and hugely time-consuming” discovery that would ensue in permitting a bare allegation of an antitrust conspiracy to survive a motion to dismiss, see id. at 1967 n. 6, and expressed concern that such discovery “will push cost-conscious defendants to settle even anemic cases,” id. at 1967. These concerns provide some basis for believing that whatever adjustment in pleading standards results from Bell Atlantic is limited to cases where massive discovery is likely to create unacceptable settlement pressures. Fourth, although the Court expressed doubts about the ability of district courts to “weed[] out” through case management in the discovery process “a claim just shy of a plausible entitlement to relief,” id. (emphasis added), the Court did not disclaim its prior statement that “federal courts and litigants must rely on summary judgment and control of discovery to weed out unmeritorious claims sooner rather than later.” Leatherman, 507 U.S. at 168-69, 113 S.Ct. 1160 (emphasis added). Leaving Leatherman and Crawford-El undisturbed (compared to the explicit disavowal of the “no set of facts” language of Conley) further suggests that Bell Atlantic, or at least its full force, is limited to the antitrust context. Fifth, just two weeks after issuing its opinion in Bell Atlantic, the Court cited it for the traditional proposition that “Specific facts are not necessary [for a pleading that satisfies Rule 8(a)(2) ]”; the statement need only “ ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Erickson, 127 S.Ct. at 2200 (quoting Bell Atlantic’s quotation from Conley) (omission in original). These conflicting signals create some uncertainty as to the intended scope of the Court’s decision. We are reluctant to assume that all of the language of Bell Atlantic applies only to section 1 allegations based on competitors’ parallel conduct or, slightly more broadly, only to antitrust cases. Some- of the language relating generally to Rule 8 pleading standards seems to be so integral to the rationale of the Court’s parallel conduct holding as to constitute a necessary part of that holding. See Pierre N. Leval, Judging under the Constitution: Dicta about Dicta, 81 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 1249, 1257 (2006) (“The distinction [between holding and dictum] requires recognition of what was the question before the court upon which the judgment depended, how (and by what reasoning) the court resolved the question, and what role, if any, the proposition played in the reasoning that led to the judgment.”). After careful consideration of the Court’s opinion and the conflicting signals from it that we have identified, we believe the Court is not requiring a universal standard of heightened fact pleading, but is instead requiring a flexible “plausibility standard,” which obliges a pleader to amplify a claim with some factual allegations in those contexts where such amplification is needed to render the claim plausible. We will say more about this approach as we apply it below to some of the Plaintiffs specific allegations. Notwithstanding what we understand to be the essential message of Bell Atlantic, we acknowledge that we see some merit in the argument in favor of a heightened pleading standard in this ease for two reasons. First, qualified immunity is a privilege that is essential to the ability of government officials to carry out their public roles effectively without fear of undue harassment by litigation. In this respect, the factors favoring a heightened pleading standard to overcome a qualified immunity defense are distinguishable from the purely prudential and policy-driven factors that the Supreme Court found inadequate to justify a heightened pleading standard in the Title VII context. See Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514-15, 122 S.Ct. 992. Second, some of the allegations in the Plaintiffs complaint, although not entirely conclusory, suggest that some of the Plaintiffs claims are based not on facts supporting the claim but, rather, on generalized allegations of supervisory involvement. Therefore, allowing some of the Plaintiffs claims to survive a motion to dismiss might facilitate the very type of broad-ranging discovery and litigation burdens that the qualified immunity privilege was intended to prevent. Nevertheless, although Swierkiewicz was decided in the context of Title VII, we are mindful of the Supreme Court’s statement in that decision that heightened pleading requirements “must be obtained by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation.” Id. at 515, 122 S.Ct. 992 (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent any indication from the Supreme Court that qualified immunity might warrant an exception to this general approach and the explicit disclaimer of a heightened pleading standard in Bell Atlantic, reinforced by the reversal of the Tenth Circuit’s use of a heightened pleading standard in Erickson, we conclude that a heightened pleading rule may not be imposed. However, in order to survive a motion to dismiss under the plausibility standard of Bell Atlantic, a conclu-sory allegation concerning some elements of a plaintiffs claims might need to be fleshed out by a plaintiffs response to a defendant’s motion for a more definite statement. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). In addition, even though a complaint survives, a motion to dismiss, a district court, while mindful of the need to vindicate the purpose of the qualified immunity defense by dismissing non-meritorious claims against public officials at an early stage of litigation, may nonetheless consider exercising its discretion to permit some limited and tightly controlled reciprocal discovery so that a defendant may probe for amplification of a plaintiffs claims and a plaintiff may probe such matters as a defendant’s knowledge of relevant facts and personal involvement in challenged conduct. In a case such as this where some of the defendants are current or former senior officials of the Government, against whom broad-ranging allegations of knowledge and personal involvement are easily made, a district court might wish to structure such limited discovery by examining written responses to interrogatories and requests to admit before authorizing depositions, and by deferring discovery directed to high-level officials until discovery of front-line officials has been completed and has demonstrated the need for discovery higher up the ranks. If discovery directed to current or former senior officials becomes warranted, a district court might also consider making all such discovery subject to prior court approval. We note that Rule 8(a)’s liberal pleading requirement, when applied mechanically without countervailing discovery safeguards, threatens to create a dilemma between adhering to the Federal Rules and abiding by the principle that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit as well as from liability. Therefore, we emphasize that, as the claims surviving this ruling are litigated on remand, the District Court not only may, but “must exercise its discretion in a way that protects the substance of the qualified immunity defense ... so that officials [or former officials] are not subjected to unnecessary and burdensome discovery or trial proceedings.” Crawford-El, 523 U.S. at 597-98, 118 S.Ct. 1584 (emphasis added). In addition, the District Court should provide ample opportunity for the Defendants to seek summary judgment if, after carefully targeted discovery, the evidence indicates that certain of the Defendants were not sufficiently involved in the alleged violations to support a finding of personal liability, or that no constitutional violation took place. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 821, 102 S.Ct. 2727 (Brennan, J., concurring) (“[S]ummary judgment will also be readily available whenever the plaintiff cannot prove, as a threshold matter, that a violation of his constitutional rights actually occurred.”). We give these matters additional consideration below with respect to particular claims. (f) The post-9/11 context. Several Defendants contend that even if the Plaintiffs complaint would survive a motion to dismiss in the face of a qualified immunity defense under normal circumstances, the posi>-9/ll context requires a different outcome. This argument is advanced on three fronts. First, some Defendants contend that the Government was entitled to take certain actions that might not have been lawful before 9/11 because the Government’s interests assumed special weight in the post-9/11 context. Second, some Defendants contend that, even if the law was clearly established as to the existence of a right claimed to have been violated, it was not clearly established in the extraordinary circumstances of the 9/11 attack and its aftermath. Third, some Defendants contend that the post-9/11 context renders their actions objectively reasonable, an argument we do not reach in view of our disposition of their second contention. We fully recognize the gravity of the situation that confronted investigative officials of the United States as a consequence of the 9/11 attack. We also recognize that some forms of governmental action are permitted in emergency situations that would exceed constitutional limits in normal times. See Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 425-26, 54 S.Ct. 231, 78 L.Ed. 413 (1934) (“While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power.”). But most of the rights that the Plaintiff contends were violated do not vary with surrounding circumstances, such as the right not to be subjected to needlessly harsh conditions of confinement, the right to be free from the use of excessive force, and the right not to be subjected to ethnic or religious discrimination. The strength of our system of constitutional rights derives from the steadfast protection of those rights in both normal and unusual times. With some rights, for example, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, the existence of exigent circumstances might justify governmental action that would not otherwise be permitted. See, e.g., Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (exigent circumstances permitted warrantless entry into home). But, as we discuss below, see Part VI, the exigent circumstances of the post-9/11 context do not diminish the Plaintiffs right not to be needlessly harassed and mistreated in the confines of a prison cell by repeated strip and body-cavity searches. This and other rights, such as the right to be free from use of excessive force and not to be subjected to ethnic or religious discrimination, were all clearly established prior to 9/11, and they remained clearly established even in the aftermath of that horrific event. To whatever extent exigent circumstances might affect the lawfulness of the Defendants’ actions or might have justified an objectively reasonable belief that their actions did not violate clearly established law, we consider the argument in connection with a particular claim. With these general principles in mind, we turn to the Plaintiffs specific claims. II. Procedural Due Process The Plaintiff alleges that Ashcroft and Mueller, the FBI Defendants, the BOP Defendants, and Hasty adopted a policy under which he was deprived of a liberty interest without any of the procedural protections required by due process of law. His allegation of the deprivation of a liberty interest, even while lawfully confined without bail on criminal charges, is based on his placement in solitary confinement, where he was subjected to needlessly harsh restrictions that were atypical and significant when compared to those in the rest of the MDC population. The Defendants contend that (1) the Plaintiff did not allege that the confinement was punitive; (2) no procedural due process right was violated because the Plaintiff did not have a liberty interest in avoiding extended confinement in the ADMAX SHU and, even if he did, he received all the process that was due; (3) even if the Plaintiffs procedural due process right was violated, the contours of this right were not clearly established at the time of the events in question; (4) the Defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in the post-9/11 context; and (5) the Plaintiff has failed to allege personal involvement. We are required by the Supreme Court’s decision in Saucier to assess these arguments within a two-part framework, asking first whether the alleged facts show a violation of a constitutional right, see Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, and, if so, “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case,” see id. The first, second, and fifth of the Defendants’ arguments bear on the initial issue of whether a violation has been alleged; the third argument — whether the right was clearly established — is precisely the second issue under Saucier; and the fourth argument is often a further component of a qualified immunity defense because even if the law was clearly established, it might have been objectively reasonable, on the facts of a particular case, for a defendant to believe that the actions taken did not violate that established law, see Johnson, 239 F.3d at 250. (a) Has a Violation of a Procedural Due Process Right Been Adequately Pleaded? In assessing the adequacy of the Plaintiffs pleading of a procedural due process violation we first consider the basic question of whether the Plaintiff has pleaded the existence of a liberty interest and entitlement to procedures that were not provided and then consider the Defendants’ arguments that punitive intent and personal involvement were not adequately pleaded. (i) The Plaintiff’s procedural due process right. In concluding that the Plaintiff had a protected liberty interest, Judge Gleeson relied on this Court’s decision in Tellier v. Fields, 280 F.3d 69 (2d Cir.2000). See Dist. Ct. op. at *17-*18. In Tellier, a federal inmate allegedly was placed in administrative detention in the SHU for more than 500 days without being informed of the reasons for his placement or receiving any hearings. See 280 F.3d at 74. The regulations governing administrative segregation, 28 C.F.R. § 541.22, entitle inmates to “an administrative detention order detailing the reasons for placing an inmate in administrative detention ... provided institutional security is not compromised thereby.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.22(b). Moreover, the regulations require a Segregation Review Officer to “hold a hearing and formally review the status of each inmate who spends seven continuous days in administrative detention, and thereafter ... hold a hearing and review these cases formally at least every 30 days.” Id. § 541.22(c)(1). The regulations specifically provide that administrative detention “is to be used only for short periods of time except ... where there are exceptional circumstances, ordinarily tied to security or complex investigative concerns.” Id. In assessing whether a prisoner had a protected liberty interest in avoiding administrative segregation, Tellier looked to Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held that state-created liberty interests of prisoners were limited to freedom from restraint that “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293. Since Sandin, the rule in this Circuit has been that a prisoner has a protected liberty interest “ ‘only if the deprivation ... is atypical and significant and the state has created the liberty interest by statute or regulation.’ ” Tellier, 280 F.3d at 80 (quoting Sealey v. Giltner, 116 F.3d 47, 52 (2d Cir.1997)) (omission in original); see also Palmer v. Richards, 364 F.3d 60, 64 & n. 2 (2d Cir.2004). Numerous cases in this Circuit have discussed the “atypical and significant hardship” prong of Sandin. Relevant factors include both the conditions of segregation and its duration. See Palmer, 364 F.3d at 64. Segregation of longer than 305 days in standard SHU conditions is sufficiently atypical to require procedural due process protection under Sandin. See id. at 65 (citing Colon v. Howard, 215 F.3d 227, 231 (2d Cir.2000)). When confinement is of an intermediate duration — between 101 and 305 days — “ ‘development of a detailed record’ of the conditions of the confinement relative to ordinary prison conditions is required.” Id. at 64-65 (quoting Colon, 215 F.3d at 232). Applying these standards, Tellier first observed that the prisoner had alleged confinement of more than 500 days “under conditions that differ markedly from those in the general population,” finding this sufficient to allege “atypical and significant” hardships. 280 F.3d at 80. Turning to the language of the regulations, the Court agreed that because the initial decision to place a prisoner in administrative detention is a discretionary one, the plaintiff did not have a “protected liberty interest that is violated when the Warden removes him or her from the general population.” Id. at 82. However, the Court found, the regulations constrain the warden’s discretion in maintaining a prisoner in detention and the procedures “are designed to ensure that a prisoner is kept in SHU for no longer than is necessary.” Id. at 82-83. Accordingly, the Court concluded that section 541.22 “creates a protectable liberty interest when an official’s failure to adhere to the [regulation] results in an atypical, significant deprivation.” Id. at 83 (internal quotation marks omitted). Relying on Tellier, Judge Gleeson concluded that the Plaintiff had a clearly established protectable liberty interest in avoiding continued detention in the AD-MAX SHU. See Dist. Ct. op. at *18. On appeal, the Defendants contend that Tellier is no longer good law in light of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005). In Wilkinson, the Supreme Court considered Sandin’s application to segregation in Ohio’s Supermax facility. Inmates in the Supermax facility were detained in solitary confinement indefinitely, they remained in their cells 23 hours a day, the lights were turned on constantly, they could not go outside for recreation, and they were limited to non-contact visits. See id. at 214-15, 125 S.Ct. 2384. The Court confirmed Sandin’s holding that “a liberty interest in avoiding particular conditions of confinement may arise from state policies or regulations, subject to the important limitations set forth in Sandin,” id. at 222, 125 S.Ct. 2384, but observed that “the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” id. at 223, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court recognized that the courts of appeals had struggled to identify a baseline for determining what constitutes an atypical and significant hardship, but it concluded that confinement in the Supermax facility “imposes an atypical and significant hardship under any plausible baseline.” Id. Having found that the prisoner had a protected liberty interest, the Court concluded that Ohio’s “informal, nonadversary procedures” were sufficient to satisfy due process requirements. Id. at 228-29, 125 S.Ct. 2384. The Defendants argue that Wilkinson abrogates Tellier or that it at least renders the relevant standard unclear because it instructs courts to consider the nature of the conditions, not the requirements of the regulations. We disagree for two reasons. First, while Wilkinson instructs courts to focus on the nature of the conditions, it nonetheless explains that the “liberty interest in avoiding particular conditions of confinement ... arise[s] from state policies or regulations.” Id. at 222, 125 S.Ct. 2384. Following Tellier, Judge Gleeson looked to the duration and conditions of confinement, as instructed by Wilkinson. See Dist. Ct. op. at *18. Second, and more significantly, for at least half (if not all) of the Plaintiffs confinement in the ADMAX SHU, he was a pretrial detainee, not a convicted prisoner. This Court has said that Sandin does not apply to pretrial detainees and that, accordingly, pretrial detainees need not show that an imposed restraint imposes atypical and significant hardships to state deprivation of a liberty interest protected by procedural due process. See Benjamin v. Fraser, 264 F.3d 175, 188-89 (2d Cir.2001) (“Benjamin I”). In Benjamin I, this Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the imposition of painful physical restraints during the movement of pretrial detainees required “reasonable after-the-fact procedural protections to ensure that such restrictions on liberty [would] be terminated reasonably soon if they [had] no justification.” Id. at 188. In sum, Wilkinson does not affect the validity of Judge Gleeson’s ruling that the Plaintiff had a protected liberty interest because (1) he considered the Plaintiffs allegations of atypical and significant hardships and (2) the Wilkinson and Sandin analysis does not apply to the interval of the Plaintiffs pretrial detention. Under this Court’s case law, the Plaintiffs confinement of more than six months fell in the intermediate range, thereby requiring inquiry into the conditions of his confinement, which he sufficiently alleges to have been severe. Even under Wilkinson, the conditions under which the Plaintiff alleges that he was confined — solitary confinement, repeated strip and body-cavity searches, beatings, exposure to excessive heat and cold, very limited exercise, and almost constant lighting — as well as the initially indefinite duration of confinement could be found to constitute atypical and significant hardships. See 545 U.S. at 223-24, 125 S.Ct. 2384. The Plaintiff has alleged a protected liberty interest in avoiding more than six months’ detention in the ADMAX SHU, especially in light of his status as a pretrial detainee. The Defendants also dispute the violation of a procedural due process right by arguing that, even if the Plaintiff had a protected liberty interest in avoiding extended detention in the ADMAX SHU, he received all the process that was due by virtue of the FBI’s review. This argument is unavailing at this preliminary stage of the litigation. In Wilkinson, the Supreme Court applied the familiar balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), to determine whether the plaintiff received adequate procedural protections. See 545 U.S. at 224-25, 125 S.Ct. 2384. Under the second prong of this test, the Court observed that inmates received “notice of the factual basis leading to consideration for OSP placement and a fair opportunity for rebuttal,” stating that “these are among the most important procedural mechanisms for purposes of avoiding erroneous deprivations.” Id. at 225-26, 125 S.Ct. 2384. After weighing all the relevant factors, the Court found that “[w]here the inquiry draws more on the experience of prison administrators, and where the State’s interest implicates the safety of other inmates and prison personnel, ... informal, nonadversary procedures” were sufficient. Id. at 228-29, 125 S.Ct. 2384. In the pending case, the Plaintiff alleges that he did not even receive notice of the factual grounds on which he was being detained in the ADMAX SHU nor did he have any opportunity for rebuttal. We recognize that in the post-9/11 context the third Mathews factor — the gravity of the Government’s interest — is appropriately accorded more weight than would otherwise be warranted. It might be that the combination of (1) the Plaintiffs interest in avoiding confinement under harsh conditions, (2) the risk of an erroneous determination of the need for such confinement, and (3) the Government’s interest, accorded added weight in the post-9/11 context, would, on balance, lead to the conclusion that the Government need not have given the Plaintiff notice and a chance for rebuttal before placing him in the ADMAX SHU. However, once it became clear that the Plaintiff was going to be confined in the ADMAX SHU for an extended period of time, some process was required. We cannot say in the absence of a developed factual record whether the FBI’s clearance procedure comported with the requirements of the Due Process Clause as interpreted in Mathews and subsequent cases. The sparse record thus far developed provides no indication as to what security-related steps the Defendants were taking that might justify prolonged confinement. Nor does that record indicate in what respect providing the Plaintiff with some notice of the basis for his separation in the ADMAX SHU and affording some opportunity for rebuttal would have impaired national security interests or legitimate penological interests of the Government. The Government has not as yet had an opportunity to refute the Plaintiffs allegation that there was no evidence connecting him to terrorism. Accordingly, we cannot say whether the Government’s national security interests rendered the clearance procedure sufficient to satisfy procedural due process requirements or whether more traditional procedural protections were required. Nevertheless, because we are required at this stage of the litigation to accept all of the Plaintiffs allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor, we cannot say that the Plaintiff has failed to plead a viable claim under the procedural component of the Due Process Clause. Judge Gleeson dismissed the Plaintiffs procedural due process claim with respect to the initial confinement in the ADMAX SHU, Dist. Ct. op. at *17 n. 18, but properly ruled that the Plaintiff had stated a procedural due process claim with respect to his continued confinement, see id. at *18 — *19. (ii) Punitive intent. Ashcroft, Mueller, and Hasty, citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979), contend that the Plaintiff has not stated a claim that the confinement in the ADMAX SHU violated his procedural due process rights because he has not alleged that the confinement was punitive. Preliminarily, we note that the complaint alleges that the Defendants designed a policy under which the Plaintiff was “arbitrarily designated to be confined in the ADMAX SHU” and that “[kjeeping Plaintiff! ] in isolation ... amounted to the willful, malicious, and unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering.” This is sufficient to allege that the confinement was punitive in nature. More fundamentally, however, we deem unsupportable the Defendants’ premise that the Plaintiffs procedural due process claim requires an allegation of punitive intent. Defendants Ashcroft and Mueller cite Wolfish, 441 U.S. at 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, for the