Full opinion text
Opinion by Judge BYBEE; Dissent by Chief Judge KOZINSKI; Dissent by Judge TALLMAN. OPINION BYBEE, Circuit Judge: This § 1983 case concerns allegations of unlawful conduct by officials in the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (“MCSO”) and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”), conduct which culminated in the late-night arrests of Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, owners of the Phoenix New Times, LLC. Lacey, Larkin, and the New Times (collectively, “Lacey”) sued Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, head of the MCSO; County Attorney Andrew Thomas, head of the MCAO; former Independent Special Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Dennis Wilenchik; and Maricopa County (collectively, “defendants”) under numerous federal and state causes of action. The district court dismissed all federal claims, and remanded all state law claims back to the Arizona courts. We affirm in part and reverse in part, finding that Lacey adequately alleged several causes of action for which the defendants are not entitled to immunity. We remand for further proceedings. I. THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS For purposes of this appeal, we must accept the factual allegations in the Lacey complaint as true. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Some of the parties to this litigation are well known to the public, and the acts alleged here have been splayed across newspapers in Arizona. As we discuss the “facts” of this case, we remind the parties and other interested persons that, because we remand this case to the district court, both sides will have an opportunity to prove or contest the “facts” alleged in the complaint and set forth in this opinion. A. Background Facts The Phoenix New Times (“New Times ”) is a small, free weekly newspaper in Arizona. According to its website, the New Times was formed in 1970 to “ke[ep] the Valley of the Sun’s feet to the fire.” About Us, Phoenix New Times, http:// www.phoenixnewtimes.com/about/ (last visited Feb. 22, 2012). It brags that its “[h]ard-hitting investigative reports on everything from the misadventures of Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the state’s troubled juvenile justice system have earned the paper a well-deserved reputation for journalistic fearlessness.” Id. The New Times is a part of the Village Voice Media network. FAC ¶ 24. The New Times has been publishing articles critical of Sheriff Arpaio — known as “America’s toughest sheriff,” see Joe Arpaio with Len Sherman, America’s Toughest Sheriff: How We Can Win the War Against Crime (1996) — since the 1990s. Id. ¶ 33. On July 1, 2004, the New Times published “Sheriff Joe’s Real Estate Game,” authored by New Times reporter John Dougherty, which questioned Arpaio’s commercial real estate transactions, including how he could have invested more than $690,000 in cash in commercial real estate on a modest state salary and federal pension. Id. ¶ 34 & n. 1. The New Times explained that Arpaio had used a little-known Arizona statute to redact much of the information about his commercial real estate holdings from the County Recorder’s public records, allegedly in response to death threats. Id. ¶¶ 35-36. A week later, in a July 8, 2004 New Times article by Dougherty entitled “Stick it to ‘Em,” the paper again questioned Arpaio’s redaction of personal information from public records, pointing out that Arpaio’s home address was available from other websites; at the end of the article, the paper published Arpaio’s home address. Id. ¶¶ 34 n. 1, 37. Arpaio contemplated prosecuting his critics at the New Times under an Arizona statute prohibiting the dissemination of personal information on the Internet if disseminating it “pose[s] an imminent and serious threat” to a public law enforcement official or his family and that threat is reasonably apparent to the person publishing it online. Id. ¶ 39. Arpaio did not raise the issue with then-Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley at the time of publication, believing that Romley would not prosecute. Id. ¶ 43 & n. 2. Instead, Arpaio waited another seven months, until February 2005, when he met with the new County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, and discussed his desire to prosecute those at the New Times. Id. ¶¶ 43 & n. 2, 51. Thomas’s staff investigated the matter but had concerns and did not immediately pursue prosecution. Id. ¶ 51. Finally, in April 2005, ten months after the articles first appeared, Arpaio requested an investigation. Id. ¶ 52. The MCAO conducted a formal evaluation in May 2005 and prepared an “Incident Review Memo”; it summarized the weaknesses of the case, including that Arpaio significantly delayed in reporting the incident, there was no solid evidence that Arpaio feared for his safety, and Arpaio’s personal information was already publicly available. Id. ¶ 53. The memorandum also noted that Arpaio was demanding that charges be filed and that if no charges were filed, there would be “problems” between the MCSO and the MCAO. Mil 54. On June 20, 2005, an investigator for the MCAO submitted a supplemental report, finding that numerous public documents contained Arpaio’s personal information and noting that Arpaio had waited ten months to request a prosecution and chose not to report it to any prosecuting agency other than the MCAO under Thomas. Id. ¶ 50. In August 2005, the MCAO Incident Review Board voted not to prosecute the New Times. Id. ¶ 55. By this time, the New Times was also running articles critical of Thomas, and Thomas determined that he could no longer pursue the case against the New Times due to a conflict of interest. Id. ¶¶ 56-57. He referred the case to Robert Carter Olson of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office (“PCAO”). Id. ¶ 57; id. Ex. 1, at 1. Arpaio and the MCSO immediately pressured that office to prosecute, sending letters to the PCAO and requesting meetings by phone and in person. Id. ¶¶ 58-59. Olson, however, was unwilling to comply because he was concerned that there were First Amendment implications and insufficient evidence of an imminent threat to Arpaio. Id. ¶ 58. In response to a November 15, 2005 meeting in which Olson shared these concerns, the Sheriffs Director of Legal Affairs, Ron Lebowitz, sent a strongly worded memorandum (“Lebowitz Memorandum”) to the PCAO, dated November 28, to leave no issue “unresolved.” Id. Ex. 1, at l. In it, Lebowitz explained why the New Times was being singled out for prosecution, even though other organizations had also published Arpaio’s address through their websites: Unlike the New Times web cite [sic], the three (3) other web cites raised by others as examples are neutral. In other words, none of these other web cites are or have ever been historically anti-Arpaio, especially in the consistent and invariable way that New Times has been since 1993. None of the other web cites have openly revealed the intent or purpose to destroy the Sheriffs career as an elected official, using all the vigor it could muster. [ ]None of the other web cites, historically, have resorted to writing articles against the Sheriff, using language that is inflammatory, insulting, vituperative, and the like — all of which having the effect of attracting those of the “lunatic fringe” who, for reasons of their own, view themselves as the Sheriffs sworn enemies and make it a practice to replicate New Times anti-Arpaio articles on web cites of their own or otherwise generally keep in touch with New Times as anti-Arpaio “true believers.” Id. Ex. 1, at 8-9. When Olson did not respond with action, Lebowitz and Arpaio increased the pressure. Olson proposed that the newspaper simply remove Arpaio’s address from the website as a compromise, but Arpaio found this proposal “intolerable.” Id. ¶ 61. Lebowitz wrote several more memoranda to the PCAO and ultimately gave it a 10-day deadline of May 23, 2006 by which to take action on the case. Id. ¶ 63. When that deadline passed, he wrote to the PCAO again and stated: “The Sheriff demands action and action right now.” Id. Despite these demands, the PCAO never initiated a prosecution. Id. ¶ 60. Olson left in 2007, and the new Pinal County Attorney returned the case to the MCAO. Id. ¶ 65. Because Thomas had already announced his own conflict of interest in prosecuting the case, he and Arpaio decided that Thomas should appoint Phoenix attorney Dennis Wilenchik as an Independent Special Deputy Maricopa County Attorney. Id ¶ 66-67. Wilenchik was appointed in June 2007 and assumed prosecutorial responsibility for the New Times case. Id. ¶¶ 67-68. Wilenchik already had numerous connections to Arpaio and Thomas: he had hired Thomas as an associate at his law firm — even though Thomas was a candidate for County Attorney at the time and the arrangement appeared to be a disguised campaign contribution to Thomas; Thomas and Arpaio had hired Wilenchik to perform millions of dollars of legal work, representing them in both their official and personal capacities; and Wilenchik was representing Thomas and Arpaio only months before his appointment when he demanded that the New Times retract an unflattering piece about Thomas and threatened other newspapers with defamation suits on behalf of Arpaio. Id ¶¶ 71-74. The New Times had previously criticized Wilenchik for his close relationship to Thomas and Arpaio before he was appointed an independent prosecutor; Wilenchik referred to the New Times’s criticism as “[b]irdcrap.” Id. ¶¶ 76-77. In August 2007, two months after his appointment, Wilenchik authored two grand jury subpoenas with numerous demands for the New Times. Id. ¶ 82. For any story critical of Arpaio, the subpoenas demanded that the paper reveal its confidential sources as well as produce reporters’ and editors’ notebooks, memoranda, and documents. Id The subpoenas also required the New Times to reveal information about visitors to any story, review, listing, or advertisement on its website since 2004. Id. ¶ 83. Although the documents served on the New Times purported to be grand jury subpoenas, Wilenchik had not appeared before any grand jury or otherwise obtained approval to issue them, as required by Arizona law. Id. ¶¶ 81, 86. In September 2007, Wilenchik issued another subpoena. Id ¶¶ 87-88. This time the subpoena followed a New Times article criticizing Wilenchik for defending Arpaio against a defamation suit brought by the chief of police for Buckeye, Arizona. Id The subpoena demanded that the article’s author produce “all documents, records, and files” related to the writing and editing of the story, and also “conversations and meetings relating to its publication.” Id. ¶ 88. Three weeks later, on October 10, 2007, Wilenchik decided to contact Judge Anna Baca, who was presiding over the sitting Maricopa County grand jury. Id ¶ 90. At the time, Wilenchik had motions related to the New Times matter and a judicial disqualification matter for another judge pending before her. Id. ¶¶ 90-91. Wilenchik asked Carol Turoff, wife of a member of Thomas’s senior management team and a former lay member of the committee charged with appointing appellate judges, to call Judge Baca at home to arrange a private meeting between Judge Baca and Wilenchik. Id. ¶ 90. After receiving Turoffs call on the night of October 10, Judge Baca called an emergency closed hearing the following day to review the matter; she noted the various ethical infractions that had been committed and called Wilenchik’s attempt at an ex parte communication “absolutely improper.” Id. ¶ 91. The back-and-forth between the New Times and Wilenchik and Arpaio came t'ó a head the following week. Concerned about what it believed to be a gross abuse of power by Wilenchik in issuing the subpoenas and attempting contact with Judge Baca, the New Times published the terms of Wilenchik’s subpoenas on October 18. Id. ¶¶ 92-93. It also questioned the motives and actions of Arpaio, Thomas, and Wilenchik in pursuing the investigation. Id. ¶ 98. The same day the article appeared, Wilenchik filed a motion before Judge Baca asking her to hold the New Times in contempt; issue arrest warrants for Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, co-owners of the New Times, as well as three of their lawyers; and fine the newspaper $90 million. Id. ¶¶ 99-100. That night, before the court could rule on Wilenchik’s motion, Arpaio’s “Selective Enforcement Unit” arrested Lacey and Larkin at their homes. Id. ¶¶ 24, 103. Wilenchik’s actions and the arrests were met with public and official criticism. FAC ¶ 107. Thomas promptly fired Wilenchik and, in a news conference on October 20, stated that Wilenchik’s actions were “the wrong way” to bring a prosecution. Id. ¶ 109. A month later, on November 28, Judge Baca declared Wilenchik’s grand jury subpoenas invalid. Id. ¶ 96. The court held that Wilenchik had acted ultra vires because prosecutors may not issue grand jury subpoenas without grand jury or court approval or notice. Id. B. Proceedings Below In.April 2008, Lacey, Larkin, and the New Times filed a, complaint in the Maricopa County Superior Court, . asserting various state and federal claims — including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — -against Thomas, Wilenchik, and Arpaio; those defendants’ spouses; and the MCSO and MCAO. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. In an October 6, 2008 order, the district court dismissed the MCSO and MCAO as nonjural entities, and dismissed Thomas from the suit after concluding that he was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. The court dismissed the rest of the federal claims and some of the state claims but granted Lacey leave to amend the complaint. Lacey filed his First Amended Complaint on October 31, 2008, which added Maricopa County as a defendant but omitted Thomas, the MCSO, and the MCAO as defendants. After briefing and oral argument, the district court, in a March 13, 2009 order, dismissed all of the federal claims and remanded the remaining state law claims to the Maricopa County Superior Court. Lacey appealed. A divided panel of this court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 649 F.3d 1118, 1138 (9th Cir.2011). We granted en banc review. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 663 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir.2011). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-op. Ass’n, 965 F.2d 788, 785 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (abrogating Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957))). A complaint states sufficient facts when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where . a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’ ” Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citations omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Although the complaint in this case was drafted prior to Iqbal, that standard nonetheless governs this case. See id. at 684, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (“Twombly expounded the pleading standard for ‘all civil actions.’ ” (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 1)). We review de novo the decision of a district court to grant absolute or qualified immunity to a public official. Botello v. Gammick, 413 F.3d 971, 975 (9th Cir.2005). III. SECTION 1983 CLAIMS Section 1983 provides a tort remedy against “[e]very person who, under color of [state law] subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lacey has asserted various claims under the First and Fourth Amendments, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wilenchik and Arpaio claimed that they were immune from suit. The district court rejected Wilenchik’s claim of absolute immunity but dismissed the claims against both Wilenchik and Arpaio under its qualified immunity analysis for failure to state a constitutional violation. Lacey has appealed that determination with regard to four of his § 1983 claims. Wilenchik has cross-appealed the district court’s determination that he is not entitled to absolute immunity. Lacey also challenges the 2008 dismissal of Thomas on absolute immunity grounds. We deal with each of the defendants individually. We first address Wilenchik’s claims to absolute immunity and, alternatively, qualified immunity. We then address Arpaio’s claims to qualified immunity. Finally, we address Thomas’s status as a defendant in this suit and whether he receives absolute immunity. A. Dennis Wilenchik Lacey appeals the district court’s determination that he stated no constitutional violation by former special prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik. Wilenchik cross-appeals the district court’s determination that he is not entitled to absolute immunity for approving subpoenas and ordering or advising Lacey’s and Larkin’s arrests. We agree with the district court that Wilenchik is not entitled to absolute immunity, and we disagree with the court that Wilenchik did not violate Lacey’s constitutional rights. We address each in turn and hold that Wilenchik is not entitled to qualified immunity. 1. Absolute Immunity Prosecutors performing their official prosecutorial functions are entitled to absolute immunity against constitutional torts. The Supreme Court has held that this rule follows for the same reason that prosecutors were given immunity at common law — without it, resentful defendants would bring retaliatory lawsuits against their prosecutors, and because a prosecutor “inevitably makes many decisions that could engender colorable claims of constitutional deprivation[, defending these decisions, often years after they were made, could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 342, 129 S.Ct. 855, 172 L.Ed.2d 706 (2009) (quoting Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 425-26, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Without the promise of immunity from suit, a prosecutor would be distracted from his duties and timid in pursuing prosecutions rather than exercising the independent judgment and discretion that his office requires. See id. Moreover, “the judicial process is available as a check on prosecutorial actions,” and it reduces the need for private suits for damages to keep prosecutors in line. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 492, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991); see Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 522-23, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (“[T]he judicial process is largely self-correcting: procedural rules, appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for damages actions to prevent unjust results.”). At the same time, absolute immunity is an extreme remedy, and it is justified only where “any lesser degree of immunity could impair the judicial process itself.” Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 127, 118 S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 342, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)). Immunity attaches to “the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it.” Id. (quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The prosecutor thus “bears the burden of showing that ... immunity is justified for the function in question.” Burns, 500 U.S. at 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934. If Wilenchik is entitled to absolute immunity, it is because he was acting in a prosecutorial role, not because he carried the title of Independent Special Deputy Maricopa County Attorney. Determining what functions are prosecutorial is an inexact science. The functions are those “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” in which the prosecutor is acting as “an officer of the court.” Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 342, 129 S.Ct. 855 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430-31 & n. 33, 96 S.Ct. 984). Absolute immunity also protects those functions in which the prosecutor acts as an “advocate for the State,” even if they “involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom.” Burns, 500 U.S. at 486, 111 S.Ct. 1934 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. 984). These actions need not relate to a particular trial and may even be administrative in nature, yet are connected to the trial process and “necessarily require legal knowledge and the exercise of related discretion.” Van de Kamp, 555 U.S. at 344, 129 S.Ct. 855 (holding that “determining what information should be included in the training or the supervision or the information-system management” regarding prosecutors’ duties to defendants was an administrative function to which absolute immunity attaches). Functions for which absolute prosecutorial immunity have been granted include the lawyerly functions of organizing and analyzing evidence and law, and then presenting evidence and analysis to the courts and grand juries on behalf of the government; they also include internal decisions and processes that determine how those functions will be carried out. See Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993). Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for the consequences of their advocacy, however inept or malicious, because it is filtered through a neutral and detached judicial body; they are not necessarily immune for actions taken outside this process, including actions logically — though not necessarily temporally — prior to advocacy, such as those “normally performed by a detective or police officer,” like gathering evidence, id., and those separate from the process, like providing legal advice to the police, see Burns, 500 U.S. at 495-96, 111 S.Ct. 1934. Wilenchik argues that he is entitled to absolute immunity for claims arising out of the issuance of the purported grand jury subpoenas and those arising out of the arrests. With regard to the subpoenas, Wilenchik cannot claim absolute immunity, although we think the issue is a close one. Prosecutors generally enjoy absolute immunity for their conduct before grand juries, see id. at 490 n. 6, 111 S.Ct. 1934; Yaselli v. Goff, 275 U.S. 503, 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395 (1927) (per curiam) (summarily affirming lower court decision, 12 F.2d 396 (2d Cir.1926), that immunity extended to prosecutor’s conduct before a grand jury); Rehberg v. Paulk, 611 F.3d 828, 838 (11th Cir.2010), aff'd on other grounds, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (2012), because that conduct is integral to “the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430, 96 S.Ct. 984. But we can find no justification for extending absolute immunity to the acts of a prosecutor designed to avoid the “judicial phase.” Here, Wilenchik is alleged to have acted ultra vires when he issued the subpoenas without ever obtaining grand jury or court approval. The complaint states that Judge Baca, in a November 28, 2007 order, found grand jury abuse at the hands of Wilenchik. No grand jury had approved the Wilenchik subpoenas — Wilenchik had acted as a one-man grand jury. County prosecutors, the Judge ruled, have no common law powers to subpoena witnesses or documents in Arizona (citing Gershon v. Broomfield, 131 Ariz. 507, 642 P.2d 852 (1982)). A prosecutor seeking grand jury evidence by subpoena must either secure the prior permission of the grand jury or must notify the grand jury foreperson and the presiding criminal judge within 10 days of issuing a subpoena unilaterally. Wilenchik did neither. FAC ¶ 96. As the complaint states, under Arizona statutes, a county attorney may issue a grand jury subpoena to the target of an investigation under two circumstances. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4071(B)(2). First, the prosecutor may do so with the prior consent of the grand jury. See id.; Gershon, 642 P.2d at 853-54. Second, a prosecutor may issue a subpoena during an investigation without a grand jury’s prior consent, but only if the county attorney notifies both the grand jury’s foreman and the presiding judge of the superior court within ten days of issuing the subpoena. Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-4071(C). The complaint recites that Wilenchik did neither. Had Wilenchik followed Arizona law, his drafting of the grand jury subpoenas would likely have come within the shield of absolute immunity. See Burns, 500 U.S. at 490 n. 6, 111 S.Ct. 1934. But the facts alleged in the complaint suggest that Wilenchik avoided taking the steps that would have protected him from suit, perhaps precisely to avoid the scrutiny of the grand jury or the court. See FAC ¶¶ 81, 86. The prosecutor’s immunity is rooted in “the same considerations that underlie the common-law immunities of judges and gran[d] jurors acting within the scope of their duties,” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 422-23, 96 S.Ct. 984, which is to “protect[ ] the judicial process,” Burns, 500 U.S. at 492, 111 S.Ct. 1934. But the judicial process also serves as “a check on prosecutorial actions.” Id. Those checks failed here because the prosecutor acted on his own authority, rather than securing the approvals required by Arizona law. Even if Wilenchik’s authoring of a grand jury subpoena might in another context be considered “a vital part of the administration of criminal justice,” by avoiding judicial scrutiny, his actions were one step “further removed from the judicial phase of criminal proceedings.” Malley, 475 U.S. at 342, 106 S.Ct. 1092. Where the prosecutor has side-stepped the judicial process, he has forfeited the protections the law offers to those who work within the process. Wilenchik is also not entitled to absolute immunity in connection with ordering or advising those making the arrests. Neither are prosecutorial functions. In Bums, the Supreme Court held that giving legal advice to police, including advice as to whether there is probable cause to arrest a suspect, is not a function protected by absolute immunity. 500 U.S. at 493-96, 111 S.Ct. 1934; accord Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1233-34 (9th Cir.2009). The mere rendering of legal advice is not so closely connected to the judicial process that litigation concerning that advice would interfere with it. Burns, 500 U.S. at 493-94, 111 S.Ct. 1934. Further, “it is incongruous to allow prosecutors to be absolutely immune from liability for giving advice to the police, but to allow police officers only qualified immunity for following the advice.” Id. at 495, 111 S.Ct. 1934. Thus, to the extent that Wilenchik counseled police about the propriety of the arrests, he is not entitled to absolute immunity for the consequences. The same logic also precludes Wilenchik from claiming immunity for playing other roles in the arrests, including ordering them. Such decisions entail the same determination. When a prosecutor orders or counsels warrantless arrests, he acts directly to deprive someone of liberty; he steps outside of his role as an advocate of the state before a neutral and detached judicial body and takes upon himself the responsibility of determining whether probable cause exists, much as police routinely do. Nothing in the procuring of immediate, warrantless arrests is so essential to the judicial process that a prosecutor must be granted absolute immunity. Indeed, the aberrant nature of Wilenchik’s behavior is evinced by the fact that he ordered the arrests while he had a request for arrest warrants pending before a judge. His decisions to proceed outside the judicial process cannot be the basis for affording him absolute immunity from suit. 2. Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “represents the norm” for government officials exercising discretionary authority, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), including prosecutors who are not acting as an advocate for the state and may not be entitled to absolute immunity, Buckley, 509 U.S. at 273, 113 S.Ct. 2606. Like absolute immunity, qualified immunity is an immunity from suit and not merely damages. Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806. Under qualified immunity, an officer is protected from suit when he makes a reasonable mistake of law or fact. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). Determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity involves a two-pronged analysis. First, we ask, “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), overruled in part by Pearson, 555 U.S. at 235-236, 129 S.Ct. 808. Second, we must ask “whether the right was clearly established.” Id. A right is clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151. We have the discretion to decide “which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808; see also Mueller v. Auker, 576 F.3d 979, 993-94 (9th Cir.2009). If we answer the first of the two inquiries in the negative, then the officer’s conduct was constitutional, and there can be no violation of § 1983. The officer has no need for immunity; he is innocent of the alleged infractions. If the answer to the first question is “yes” and the second question “no,” then the officer’s conduct is protected by qualified immunity. Only when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right — when the officer should have known he was violating the Constitution — does he forfeit qualified immunity. Lacey asserted that the defendants are each liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on their own actions; he has also alleged that Arpaio is liable under a theory of supervisory liability, and that Arpaio, Wilenchik, and Thomas are liable under a theory of civil conspiracy. Section 1983 has a causation requirement, with liability extending to those state officials who “subject[], or cause[] to be subjected,” an individual to a deprivation of his federal rights. As we explained in Johnson v. Duffy: A person “subjects” another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made. Moreover, personal participation is not the only predicate for section 1983 liability. Anyone who “causes” any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. The requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury. 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir.1978) (citation omitted); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2011) (holding that an official “need not be ‘directly and personally involved in the same way as are the individual officers who are on the scene inflicting constitutional injury’ ” to be held liable as long as “culpable action ... is directly attributed to [him]” (quoting Larez v. City of L.A., 946 F.2d 630, 645 (9th Cir.1991))). Culpability, however, is limited not only by the causal connection of the official to the complained-of violation, but also by his intent (depending on the underlying constitutional violation at issue) to deprive another of that person’s rights; both limitations on the nature of culpable conduct are critical, for “each Government official ... is only liable for his or her own misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677, 129 S.Ct. 1937. For an official to be liable for another actor’s depriving a third party of his constitutional rights, that official must have at least the same level of intent as would be required if the official were directly to deprive the third party of his constitutional rights. See id. With this proviso, a supervisor can be held liable for the constitutional torts of his subordinates if “a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” exists, Stair, 652 F.3d at 1207 (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989)); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677, 129 S.Ct. 1937. But an official with no official authority over another actor can also be liable for that actor’s conduct if he induces that actor to violate a third party’s constitutional rights, provided that the official possesses the requisite intent, such as retaliatory animus. See Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 262, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006); see also Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1196-97, 1204 (9th Cir.1997) (finding liability for both supervisory and nonsupervisory officials). The district court granted judgment to Wilenchik on the grounds that Lacey’s complaint failed to state a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right. For the most part, we disagree with the district court that the allegations fail to state a constitutional tort, and we hold that Wilenchik is not entitled to qualified immunity for them. a. First Amendment Retaliation Lacey claims that Wilenchik violated his First Amendment rights by investigating and arresting him in retaliation for articles published in the New Times and with the purpose of suppressing the exercise of those rights. “Official reprisal for protected speech ‘offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right[’;] ... the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out.” Hartman, 547 U.S. at 256, 126 S.Ct. 1695 (first alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 n. 10, 118 S.Ct. 1584, 140 L.Ed.2d 759 (1998)). We have held that “to demonstrate a First Amendment violation, a plaintiff must provide evidence showing that ‘by his actions [the defendant] deterred or chilled [the plaintiffs] political speech and such deterrence was a substantial or motivating factor in [the defendant’s] conduct.’” Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1469 (9th Cir.1994)). Lacey need not show his “speech was actually inhibited or suppressed.” Id. Rather, we consider “whether an official’s acts would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities.” Id. (quoting Crawford-El v. Britton, 93 F.3d 813, 826 (D.C.Cir.1996), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 1273, 117 S.Ct. 2451, 138 L.Ed.2d 210 (1997)). Lacey must allege facts ultimately enabling him to “prove the elements of retaliatory animus as the cause of injury,” with causation being “understood to be but-for causation.” Hartman, 547 U.S. at 260, 126 S.Ct. 1695; see id. (“It may be dishonorable to act with an unconstitutional motive and perhaps in some instances be unlawful, but action colored by some degree of bad motive does not amount to a constitutional tort if that action would have been taken anyway.”); Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 901 (9th Cir.2008). Lacey has adequately alleged that Wilenchik’s primary intent was to silence the New Times’s protected speech, which came in the form of newspaper articles criticizing public officials. First, Wilenchik’s actions were sufficient to chill Lacey’s protected speech. Wilenchik issued broad, invalid subpoenas demanding that the paper reveal its sources, disclose its reporters’ notes, and reveal information about anyone who visited the New Times’s website; Wilenchik’s motions for arrest warrants, contempt findings, and fines show that he meant the New Times to fear them as valid. He did not wait for the warrants or other official approval before authorizing Arpaio’s “Selective Enforcement Unit” to arrest Lacey and Larkin at their homes. In the circumstances of this case, to state that “[arresting someone in retaliation for their exercise of free speech rights” is sufficient to chill speech is an understatement. Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853, 871 (9th Cir.2008); see White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1237-38 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that intrusive investigation that did not culminate in an arrest could chill the exercise of First Amendment rights). Second, Wilenchik’s actions against Lacey, Larkin, and the New Times were plainly intended to punish them for their First Amendment activities and deter them from future activities. Although Wilenchik’s entire alleged course of conduct evinces this, the proof is clearly found in Wilenchik’s efforts to have Lacey and Larkin arrested the same day the New Times published an article critical of his investigation. See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288-89 (9th Cir.2003) (proximity in time supports an inference that the motive was unconstitutional retaliation). This, along with Wilenchik’s lacking probable cause to have Lacey and Larkin arrested, raises the strong inference that Wilenchik was motivated by retaliatory animus and that it was a but-for cause of his actions. It is hard to conceive of a more direct assault on the First Amendment than public officials ordering the immediate arrests of their critics. And, in this case, there was nothing subtle about their efforts to stifle the New Times. We have no difficulty concluding that, if the allegations are proven, Wilenchik violated Lacey’s clearly established First Amendment rights. Wilenchik is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity- b. False Arrest Lacey claims that Wilenchik is liable for ■ ordering or counseling the MCSO to arrest him without probable cause. “A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.” Dubner v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 266 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2001). “Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability or substantial chance of criminal activity.” United States v. Patayan Soriano, 361 F.3d 494, 505 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir.2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “It is well-settled that ‘the determination of probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances known to the officers at the time of the search.’ ” Id. (quoting Bishop, 264 F.3d at 924). To maintain an action for false arrest against Wilenchik, Lacey must plead facts that would show Wilenchik ordered or otherwise procured the arrests and the arrests were without probable cause. As to the first point, Lacey has adequately alleged that Wilenchik was personally involved in the decision to arrest Lacey and Larkin even though he did. not personally arrest them. The complaint recites that Wilenchik’s former partner, William French, and staff from Wilenchik’s office claimed that “Wilenchik did indeed authorize and advise Arpaio to conduct the arrests by the ‘Selective Enforcement Unit.’ ” FAC ¶ 111. Whether Wilenchik knew that there was no probable cause for the arrests is a closer question. In general, we must ask whether “a prudent person would believe [that Lacey] had committed a crime.” Dubner, 266 F.3d at 966. Arizona’s grand jury disclosure statute makes it a misdemeanor “if the person knowingly discloses to another the nature or substance of any grand jury testimony or any decision, result or other matter attending a grand jury proceeding.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2812(A). Lacey has alleged that Wilenchik knew that he had issued the subpoenas on his own authority and that they were not, in fact, part of any grand jury proceeding. See FAC ¶ 86 (“The [August 24, 2007] subpoenas were issued ... without any formal charges or indictments pending, and without notice to or the approval of a Court or grand jury.”). If so, then Wilenchik knew that, by publishing the content of invalid subpoenas, Lacey and Larkin had not committed the crime of disclosing any “matter attending a grand jury proceeding,” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2812(A). There was no relevant grand jury proceeding, and Wilenchik’s failure to receive authorization or notify the court and grand jury foreman cannot be attributed to mistake or some other reasonable error in judgment. Lacey and Larkin have thus alleged that Wilenchik violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from false arrest by ordering their arrests without probable cause to do so. As alleged, the Fourth Amendment violation is obvious. Wilenchik is not entitled to qualified immunity with regard to Lacey’s and Larkin’s false arrest claims, and those claims may proceed. c. Malicious Prosecution Lacey also brings a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution. The district court dismissed this claim because it found that Lacey failed to show that there was no probable cause for the arrests. To claim malicious prosecution, a petitioner must allege “that the defendants prosecuted her with malice and without probable cause, and that they did so for the purpose of denying her equal protection or another specific constitutional right.” Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir.1995); see also Blaxland v. Commonwealth Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions, 323 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that malicious prosecution “concernís] the wrongful use of legal process”). It requires “the institution of criminal proceedings against another who is not guilty of the offense charged” and that “the proceedings have terminated in favor of the accused.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 653 (1977). In general, a claim of malicious prosecution is not cognizable under § 1983 “if process is available within the state judicial systems” to provide a remedy, although “we have also held that an exception exists ... when a malicious prosecution is conducted with the intent to ... subject a person to a denial of constitutional rights.” Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc). Lacey has not alleged that there was any “prosecution,” nor has he alleged that any criminal proceeding was terminated in his favor. Although being “lawfully arrested on a criminal charge” may be considered the institution of a criminal proceeding, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 654(2)(c), where “the arrest is not a valid one, an action for malicious prosecution will not lie unless some further step is taken, such as bringing the accused before a magistrate for determination whether he is to be held,” id. § 654 cmt. e. “If there is nothing more than the false arrest and the accused is released without any further proceeding,” the remedy is limited to damages for the false arrest. Id.; see also Blaxland, 323 F.3d at 1204-05. Although Lacey and Larkin were arrested, they have not alleged that any process resulting in the initiation of criminal proceedings followed this arrest. Accordingly, Lacey has not identified any action taken by Wilenchik that can properly be characterized as a prosecution. He has simply recast the false arrest claim as a claim for malicious prosecution, which he may not do. The district court properly dismissed the malicious prosecution claims. d. Selective Enforcement Lacey argues that Wilenchik violated the Equal Protection Clause by singling out Lacey and Larkin for investigation and arrest. Although the district court primarily characterized their claim as one for “selective prosecution,” on appeal Lacey calls it a claim for “selective enforcement.” Lacey’s complaint adequately supports this characterization, although the label is probably not relevant. To prevail on an equal protection claim under the “Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate that enforcement had a discriminatory effect and the police were motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Rosenbaum v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 484 F.3d 1142, 1152 (9th Cir.2007) (citing Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985)). Enforcement may be shown through a variety of actual or threatened arrests, searches and temporary seizures, citations, and other coercive conduct by the police. See id. at 1152-54; see also United States v. Frazier, 408 F.3d 1102, 1108 (8th Cir.2005); Flowers v. Fiore, 359 F.3d 24, 34 (1st Cir.2004); Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 635 (7th Cir.2001); United States v. Avery, 137 F.3d 343, 358 (6th Cir.1997). In order to prove a discriminatory effect, “the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals ... were not prosecuted.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996). The standard for proving discriminatory effect “is a demanding one.” Id. at 463, 116 S.Ct. 1480. Yet, to state a claim, Lacey need only allege some facts, either anecdotal or statistical, demonstrating “that similarly situated defendants ... could have been prosecuted, but were not.” Id. at 469, 116 S.Ct. 1480; see also Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir.1995) (“[I]t is necessary to identify a ‘similarly situated’ class against which the plaintiffs class can be compared.”) Lacey has met this burden with regard to the investigatory activities related to the publication of Arpaio’s home address, but not with respect to the publication of the grand jury subpoenas. Lacey alleged that, at the time of the New Times’s publication of Arpaio’s address, Arpaio’s address was also publicly available on at least three other websites — the websites of the Maricopa County Recorder, the Maricopa County Election Commission, and the Republican Party. Although the Arizona privacy statute shields an “employee of a county recorder ... [who] publishes personal information, in good faith, on the web site of the county recorder,” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13 — 2401(B), it provides no such protection for an employee of the Election Commission, and it says nothing about employees of political parties. Further, the complaint alleges that the MCAO’s own investigators also reached the conclusion that Arpaio’s address was widely available on the Internet, suggesting it may have been available on other websites as well. In any case, the allegations and Lebowitz Memorandum are sufficient to show that there were other websites publishing the same information as Lacey that were not investigated. Those responsible for the other websites were similarly situated if we accept the facts in the complaint as true. They and those responsible for the New Times website all satisfied the first element of the Arizona privacy statute in that they “knowingly ma[d]e [Arpaio’s address] available” on the Internet. Id. § 13-2401(A). But Lacey emphasizes that the other two' elements — “the dissemination of the personal information poses an imminent and serious threat” and the “threat is reasonably apparent to the person making the information available on the world wide web,” id. — were not satisfied by any of the website operators’ actions because there was never any evidence suggesting that the publication of Arpaio’s address by any website ever posed an imminent and serious threat to Arpaio. See FAC ¶ 41(“There was no evidence that Arpaio was then, or ever, under any credible threat of ‘imminent harm’ as a result of the publication of his home address on The New Times web site.”); id ¶ 46 (“[E]ven a cursory investigation would have revealed that the only ‘death threats’ to Arpaio were ‘made-for-TV’ contrivances by the Sheriffs public relations officers.”); id. at ¶¶ 47-48(“Arpaio, himself, obviously did not feel any ‘imminent’ threat from the ... article, because he was content to wait for many months before requesting any investigation. ... In fact, Arpaio has continued, to this day, to publicize and publish his home address to citizens and the public at large.”). Accordingly, Lacey need not allege that publication by the other websites posed an “imminent and serious threat” in order to show that the other websites were similarly situated. They were similarly situated by virtue of the fact that they too had published Arpaio’s address but were never investigated or prosecuted. Admittedly, this case is a bit unusual in that we are assuming there was no violation of the law for Wilenchik to investigate, whereas selective prosecution has developed mostly in the context of otherwise legitimate prosecutions where it is clear that the law was violated. But we find no requirement that, to state a § 1983 claim for selective prosecution, one must essentially concede liability. To establish that Wilenchik was motivated by an improper purpose, Lacey must show that Wilenchik decided to enforce the law against him “on the basis of an impermissible ground such as race, religion or exercise of ... constitutional rights.” United States v. Kidder, 869 F.2d 1328, 1336 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting United States v. Moody, 778 F.2d 1380, 1386 (9th Cir.1985), amended on other grounds, 791 F.2d 707 (9th Cir.1986)). The discussion above makes clear that Lacey has properly pled this element. The complaint plainly alleges that the New Times was singled out for enforcement. Lebowitz, in his Memorandum, argued against the PCAO’s assertion that the New Times “should not be singled out for prosecution.” FAC Ex. 1, at 7. He justified targeting the New Times by explaining at length how “[n]one of the other web cites [sic], historically, have resorted to writing articles against the Sheriff.” Id. at 7-8. The complaint alleges that Wilenchik shared this vision and did the bidding of ... the Sheriff in their attempt to punish and financially ruin a newspaper that was too often critical of him too.... [Wilenchik] attempted to put the newspaper out of business through selective, malicious, and improper means and methods of investigation and prosecution. FAC ¶ 115. Wilenchik argues that he cannot be liable for selective enforcement because, as a special prosecutor, he was charged with investigating only one potential violation of the law. It is a curious argument, and we discuss the special considerations attendant to special prosecutors in Section III.C.2, infra, but we are not persuaded that it is a meritorious argument. Even as a “special prosecutor,” Wilenchik bears some responsibility for knowing what can reasonably be charged under Arizona law. It is no defense to the claim that he decided to prosecute the New Times in retaliation for its First Amendment-protected activities to say that Wilenchik did not have the authority to prosecute anyone else if he shared Arpaio’s purpose in singling out the New Times; the limitation on his power does not relieve Wilenchik of the duty to exercise judgment consistent with the Constitution. Wilenchik is thus not entitled to qualified immunity, and Lacey may proceed with his selective enforcement claim. B. Joseph Arpaio The district court held that Lacey failed to state a claim against Arpaio under each § 1983 cause of action pled, which are the same as those against Wilenchik. Lacey appeals this determination. 1. First Amendment Retaliation Many of the same facts that support Lacey’s claims against Wilenchik for First Amendment retaliation — an intrusive investigation and arrests designed to chill his speech and press rights — also sustain the claim against Arpaio. But Arpaio is alleged to have been at it for much longer: his efforts to muffle the New Times preceded Wilenchik’s appointment by more than two years. He pressured county attorneys in Maricopa and Pinal counties to prosecute, even after attorneys in both counties concluded there was no case. FAC ¶¶ 53-55 (Maricopa County declined to prosecute); id. at ¶¶ 58-65 (Pinal County declined to prosecute). Allegedly, Arpaio was involved in the decision to appoint Wilenchik; was complicit in Wilenchik’s efforts to investigate and prosecute the New Times, Lacey, and Larkin; and ordered the arrests. See id. at ¶ 67(“Wilen-chik was hired by Thomas and Arpaio.”); id. at ¶ 80 (Wilenchik acted with “the approval and support of Arpaio.”); id. at ¶ 25 (Arpaio’s top aide claims to have “personally ordered the arrests.”); id. at ¶ 103 (“Defendants dispatched Arpaio’s aptly named ‘Selective Enforcement Unit’., to arrest Plaintiffs.”); id. at ¶ 110 (“Wilenchik has publicly claimed the arrests were conducted, authorized, approved, and/or directed by Arpaio and/or his aides.”); id. at ¶ 114 (Arpaio “applied unfair pressure and demands upon prosecutorial bodies, abusing the power of his office and influence, to investigate, prosecute, arrest, and jail Plaintiffs for improper and unconstitutional motives ... based on the content of their speech.”). We have little difficulty concluding that Arpaio is not entitled to qualified immunity on Lacey’s First Amendment retaliation claims. Lacey may proceed on those claims. 2. False Arrest Lacey has pled sufficient facts to permit a trier of fact to find that Arpaio was personally involved in the arrests. Although Arpaio has denied ordering the arrests, Wilenchik “has publicly claimed the arrests were conducted, authorized, approved, and/or directed by Arpaio and/or his aides.” FAC ¶ 110; see also FAC ¶ 114 (“[Arpaio] and/or his Office and top officials and ‘Selective Enforcement Unit’ ordered and/or made the late-night arrests and jailings.”). As we have previously mentioned, both Wilenchik’s former partner, William French, and Wilenchik’s staff stated that Wilenchik and his lawyers “authorize[d] and advise[d] Arpaio to conduct the arrests.” FAC ¶ 111. Lacey’s claim against Arpaio for false arrest for violating the grand jury secrecy statute is more difficult for him to establish because it requires proof that Arpaio knew there was no probable cause, which in turn requires that Lacey show that Arpaio knew the subpoenas were invalid. The time frame for Arpaio to learn this is narrow, because the arrests were effected the same evening as the publication of the subpoenas’ contents. Given the close relationship between Wilenchik and Arpaio, Wilenchik may well have communicated something about the subpoenas to Arpaio, and Arpaio may have known, as Wilenchik knew, that the subpoenas were invalid and there was no violation of the grand jury secrecy statute. On the other hand, if Wilenchik merely communicated that the statute had been violated, or represented that the subpoenas were valid, Arpaio’s reliance on this assertion could be reasonable. See Torres v. City of L.A., 548 F.3d 1197, 1212 (9th Cir.2008) (“[W]here an officer has an objectively reasonable, good-faith belief that he is acting pursuant to proper authority, he cannot be held liable if the information supplied by other officers turns out to be erroneous. The lynchpin is whether the officer’s reliance on the information was objectively reasonable.” (citation omitted) (quoting Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072, 1082 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Similarly, if Arpaio were disengaged from Wilenchik’s investigation and heard only about the publication of grand jury material, it might be a reasonable mistake to believe that a crime had been committed. There are other circumstances surrounding the arrests that may suggest that Arpaio either knew or should have known that something was amiss. Although the grand jury disclosure violation was just a misdemeanor, he dispatched his special unit to arrest Lacey and Larkin at their homes in the middle of the night. Sheriff Arpaio should have known that arresting someone at his home requires a warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances. See Fisher v. City of San Jose, 558 F.3d 1069, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). No warrant for Lacey’s or Larkin’s arrest had been issued, and we cannot fathom what exigent circumstances compelled either arrest. See Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). Officers “have an ongoing duty to make appropriate inquiries regarding the facts received or to further investigate if insufficient details are relayed.” Motley, 432 F.3d at 1081 (9th Cir.2005). The strange circumstances made it objectively unreasonable for Arpaio to rely on the bare claim that a misdemeanor had been committed earlier in the day, without any information about exigent circumstances, to justify the arrests of Lacey and Larkin at their homes. Given the detail in the complaint and the seriousness of the allegations, we are reluctant to dismiss the false arrest claim against Arpaio on the basis of the pleadings. Iqbal demands more of plaintiffs than bare notice pleading, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78, 129 S.Ct. 1937; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562-63, 127 S.Ct. 1955, but it does not require us to flyspeck complaints looking for any gap in the facts. Lacey has spun a long and sometimes repetitive narration of Arpaio’s determination to silence the New Times by any means necessary. It is a short step to infer that Arpaio was well aware of the flaws in Wilenchik’s prosecution, but welcomed the excuse to have Lacey and Larkin arrested immediately, even if he lacked probable cause. We think this is all Iqbal requires at this stage. Arpaio is therefore not entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim, and Lacey may proceed with it. 3. Malicious Prosecution For the same reasons discussed above, the district court properly dismissed Lacey’s malicious prosecution cause of action against Arpaio. 4. Selective Enforcement As with the First Amendment claim, and for largely the same reasons we allowed this claim to go forward against Wilenchik, the complaint adequately alleges that Arpaio acted with the requisite intent and had a sufficient causal connection to the selective enforcement against the New Times. Arpaio was part and parcel of the effort to prosecute the New Times, even if he was not the prosecutor. See Hartman, 547 U.S. at 262, 126 S.Ct. 1695 (“[A] plaintiff ... must show that the nonprosecuting official acted in retaliation, and must also show that he induced the prosecutor to bring charges that would not have been initiated without his urging.”). The Lebowitz Memorandum admits that Arpaio wanted the New Times prosecuted because it was “historically anti-Arpaio” and had written articles critical of Arpaio using “inflammatory, insulting, [and] vituperative” language. FAC, Ex. 1, at 8. This, along with the other evidence discussed above, is sufficient to show Arpaio’s discriminatory intent and the discriminatory effect of singling out the New Times. Further, as with the First Amendment claim, Arpaio’s insistence on prosecution, his role in the selection of Wilenchik, and his relationship with Wilenchik during the investigation provide a sufficient causal connection to the foreseeable result that Wilenchik would indeed investigate the New Times, resulting in its being singled out for enforcement. See Hartman, 547 U.S. at 264, 126 S.Ct. 1695 (“[E]videnee that a prosecutor was nothing but a rubber stamp for his investigative staff or the police” would be “of great sign