Whether the Eleventh Circuit overextended the holding of Ashcroft v. Iqbal such that § 1983 plaintiffs are unjustly deprived of an opportunity to conduct discovery and prove their case, particularly where the defendants are prosecutors claiming absolute immunity

QUESTION PRESENTED In 2010, Petitioner Charlie Ward was convicted of aggravated stalking and sentenced to 10 years in prison. The prosecutors who obtained that conviction knew they had obtained it in violation of double jeopardy. Ward filed a timely motion for new trial raising the double jeopardy argument, but the prosecutors were able to prevent that motion from being heard for seven years. That delay caused Ward to serve his entire 10-year sentence before the Georgia Court of Appeals decided his appeal and reversed his conviction on double jeopardy grounds. Ward filed this §1983 suit against the prosecutors. Ward made specific factual allegations regarding how the _ prosecutors violated his constitutional rights in investigating and prosecuting him, and in delaying his appeal. The district court granted the defendant prosecutors’ motion to dismiss, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, relying in large part on this Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Question Presented is whether the Eleventh Circuit overextended the holding of Igbal such that § 1983 plaintiffs like Ward are unjustly deprived of an opportunity to conduct discovery and prove their case, particularly where the defendants are prosecutors claiming absolute immunity?