Crawford-El v. Britton
523 U.S. 574 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a § 1983 action alleging a constitutional violation that requires proof of an official's improper motive is not required to adduce clear and convincing evidence of that motive to survive a defendant's motion for summary judgment. Trial courts should instead rely on existing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to weed out insubstantial claims before trial.
Facts:
- John Crawford-El, a long-time prisoner in the District of Columbia correctional system, was known for filing lawsuits and speaking to reporters about prison conditions.
- Due to overcrowding, Crawford-El was transferred through a series of prisons in different states.
- Three boxes of his personal belongings, including legal materials, were transferred separately.
- Patricia Britton, a D.C. correctional officer, received the boxes and, instead of shipping them to Crawford-El's next prison, gave them to his brother-in-law, who was also a corrections employee.
- This action caused a delay of several months before Crawford-El ultimately received his property, which was shipped by his mother at his own expense.
- Crawford-El contended that Britton deliberately misdirected his property as retaliation for his First Amendment activities, such as speaking to the press.
- Britton denied any retaliatory motive, asserting she gave the property to Crawford-El's brother-in-law to ensure its prompt and safe delivery.
Procedural Posture:
- John Crawford-El sued corrections officer Patricia Britton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The district court denied Britton's pre-discovery motion for summary judgment, which was based in part on a qualified immunity defense.
- Britton, the appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court remanded the case, allowing Crawford-El, the appellee, to amend his complaint.
- On remand, Crawford-El filed an amended complaint adding a First Amendment retaliation claim.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint, holding that the retaliation claim was not supported by 'direct evidence of unconstitutional motive.'
- A panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part but suggested the full court rehear the retaliation claim en banc.
- The D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, vacated the district court's dismissal but held that a plaintiff must prove an official's unconstitutional motive by 'clear and convincing evidence' to defeat a summary judgment motion, and remanded.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit's imposition of this heightened evidentiary standard.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the qualified immunity doctrine require a plaintiff in a constitutional tort case alleging unconstitutional motive to prove that motive by clear and convincing evidence to survive a summary judgment motion?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The qualified immunity doctrine does not require a plaintiff to prove an official's unconstitutional motive by clear and convincing evidence. The court of appeals erred by creating a heightened evidentiary standard for constitutional torts that include a motive element. The holding in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, which established an objective test for the qualified immunity defense, did not alter the plaintiff's burden of proving the elements of the underlying constitutional violation. While there are legitimate concerns about subjecting public officials to the costs of discovery and trial in insubstantial cases, these concerns are properly addressed through the firm application of existing procedural tools, such as Rules 7, 12, 26, and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not by a judicially-created, heightened burden of proof that lacks any foundation in statute or common law.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, but the majority's framework is insufficient. The Court fails to properly extend the principles of Harlow v. Fitzgerald to motive-based claims, leaving government officials vulnerable to disruptive and burdensome litigation based on simple allegations of improper intent. A government official should be entitled to qualified immunity if they can offer a legitimate, objective reason for their action, unless the plaintiff can establish with objective evidence that the offered reason is a pretext. The majority's reliance on district courts' discretionary management of procedure is an inadequate substitute for a clear, objective immunity standard that protects officials from the outset and provides consistent protection across all courts.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No, but the Court should have adopted a stricter rule. The test for qualified immunity in motive-based torts should be purely objective. Once a trial court finds that the asserted grounds for an official's action were objectively valid, it should not permit any inquiry into the official's subjective motive, even if the plaintiff has objective evidence of pretext. This approach is a necessary prophylactic to prevent the Constitution from becoming a general tort law and to properly effectuate the policy goals of Harlow v. Fitzgerald.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. While prisoner lawsuits can be frivolous and strain the judicial system, the Court is correct that the authority to create far-reaching procedural or evidentiary rules to address this problem lies with Congress, not the judiciary. The legislative branch is the proper body to balance the competing interests and craft solutions like the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms a crucial distinction between the qualified immunity defense and the elements of a plaintiff's underlying constitutional claim. It clarifies that the objective reasonableness test from Harlow v. Fitzgerald applies only to the immunity defense itself and does not heighten the plaintiff's burden of proving the substantive elements of their case, such as improper motive. The Court's refusal to judicially legislate a new evidentiary standard places the responsibility for managing potentially frivolous litigation on trial judges using existing procedural rules and on Congress. This holding prevents the creation of a significant barrier for plaintiffs in civil rights cases—such as those involving racial discrimination or First Amendment retaliation—where proving an official's state of mind is an essential element of the claim.
Unlock the full brief for Crawford-El v. Britton