3. Plaintiffs in Erickson and Swanson, like Dioguardi, p. 559, supra, appeared pro se. The number of pro se federal litigants is estimated to be from about twenty-five to thirty-seven per cent of total cases filed. See Rhodes, The Battle Lines of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and the Effects on a Pro Se Litigant’s Ability to Survive a Motion to Dismiss, 22 St.

Thomas L. Rev. 527, 531–32 (2010). Is plaintiff’s inability to retain counsel evidence of her claim’s lack of merit? See Merritt v. Faulkner, 823 F.2d 1150, 1155 (7th Cir. 1987)(Posner, J., concurring). What other factors might be at work? See Malloy, Framing the Market:

Representations of Meaning and Value in Law, Markets, and Culture, 51 Buff. L. Rev. 1

(2003). Traditionally, pro se complaints were held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652, 654 (1972), although the liberal standard sometimes was honored in the breach. Post-Twombly, the rate of dismissal of pro se complaints has increased more than the overall dismissal rate. See Schneider, IlliberalConstruction of Pro Se Pleadings, 159 U. Pa.

L. Rev. 585, 605, 617–18 (2011).