jail.” Id. ¶ 57. According to Senalan, “[t]he Lake County Sheriffs Office policy ... when dealing with mentally unstable inmates is of an injurious nature so as to willfully, and maliciously, and without conscious regard inflict injury to mentally unstable inmates by using excessive force.” Id. ¶ 59. Senalan does not allege facts (which are entitled to the assumption of truth at this stage) that plausibly suggest that the inadequate training rose to the level of deliberate indifference. Proof of deliberate indifference may be shown by failure to act in response to repeated complaints, see Som-berger, 434 F.3d at 1029, but Senalan’s bare allegation of “numerous” complaints lacks sufficient factual detail to satisfy the standard of Rule 8(a)(2), Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (<HOLDING>). The Monell claim against the Sheriffs Office
recognizing that to survive dismissal a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face internal quotation marks omitted holding that while the complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations it must contain more than a formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim and must state a claim that is plausible on its face holding that a complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face holding that dismissal pursuant to rule 12b6 is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face holding that a complaint must plead enough facts to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and state a plausible claim