Gomez v. Toledo
446 U.S. 635 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a § 1983 action against a public official, the plaintiff is not required to allege bad faith to state a claim for relief; qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by the defendant official.
Facts:
- Carlos Rivera Gomez, a Puerto Rican police agent, submitted a sworn statement asserting that two other agents had offered false evidence in a criminal investigation.
- As a result, Gomez was transferred and stripped of his investigative authority.
- An internal police investigation later concluded that Gomez's allegations were true.
- Gomez was subpoenaed to testify in a criminal case, where he repeated his claim that the other agents' evidence was false.
- Following his testimony, the Superintendent of Police, respondent Toledo, had criminal charges for unlawful wiretapping brought against Gomez.
- Toledo then suspended Gomez and, without a hearing, discharged him from the police force.
- A Puerto Rican court subsequently found no probable cause for the criminal charges against Gomez.
- An administrative commission revoked Gomez's discharge order and ordered his reinstatement with backpay.
Procedural Posture:
- Carlos Rivera Gomez sued Superintendent Toledo in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (a federal trial court) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Toledo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of action.
- The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that Gomez was required to plead in his complaint that Toledo acted in bad faith.
- Gomez (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, upholding the dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Gomez's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, must a plaintiff allege that a public official acted in bad faith in order to state a claim, or must the official plead good faith as an affirmative defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No, a plaintiff in a § 1983 action does not need to allege bad faith because qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead. The plain language of § 1983 requires only two allegations to state a cause of action: (1) that a person deprived the plaintiff of a federal right, and (2) that this person acted under color of state law. Petitioner Gomez made both of these allegations. The Court has consistently treated qualified immunity as a defense, not an element of the plaintiff's claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), the defendant bears the burden of pleading any affirmative defenses. Furthermore, the evidence needed to establish good faith—such as the official's subjective belief and the information they relied on—is peculiarly within the knowledge and control of the defendant, making it improper to place the pleading burden on the plaintiff.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Joins the majority opinion with the understanding that the decision only addresses the burden of pleading qualified immunity and leaves open the question of who bears the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue at trial. Agrees that the plaintiff need not allege bad faith in the complaint and that qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the defendant.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the pleading requirements in civil rights litigation under § 1983. By establishing qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, the Court prevents the premature dismissal of cases where a plaintiff may have a valid claim but lacks pretrial access to information about the defendant official's state of mind. This ruling lowers the initial barrier for plaintiffs, ensuring that more civil rights cases can proceed to discovery, where evidence regarding an official's good or bad faith can be uncovered. The decision solidifies the procedural framework, placing the onus on government officials to raise and prove their entitlement to immunity, rather than forcing plaintiffs to anticipate and negate it in their initial complaint.
