Lexplug logoLexplug

Johnson v. City of Shelby, Mississippi

Supreme Court of the United States
574 U. S. ____ (2014) (2014)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint is sufficient if it pleads a plausible set of facts to support a claim for relief; it does not need to expressly cite the specific legal statute or theory under which the claim is brought.


Facts:

  • Petitioners worked as police officers for the city of Shelby, Mississippi.
  • The officers discovered and reported criminal activities allegedly committed by one of the city's aldermen.
  • Subsequently, the city's board of aldermen terminated the officers' employment.
  • The officers alleged their firing was not due to poor performance but was in retaliation for exposing the alderman's conduct.

Procedural Posture:

  • The police officers (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the city of Shelby in the U.S. District Court, alleging their termination violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city of Shelby.
  • The officers (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
  • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the complaint was deficient because it failed to expressly invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  • The officers (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Locked

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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) require a plaintiff's complaint to expressly cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to state a valid claim for a violation of constitutional rights?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A complaint does not need to invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any specific legal theory to survive a motion to dismiss. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' The purpose of this rule is to avoid dismissals based on technicalities and the 'imperfect statement of the legal theory.' The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's imposition of a heightened pleading standard for civil rights cases, citing Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit for the principle that courts may not apply a more stringent standard than Rule 8(a) in such cases. The Court distinguished Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, explaining those cases address the sufficiency of the factual allegations—which must show the claim is plausible—not the necessity of articulating a specific legal theory. Because the officers stated the events that entitled them to damages, their complaint was factually sufficient and should not have been dismissed.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the liberal 'notice pleading' standard established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, clarifying that the 'plausibility' standard from Twombly and Iqbal applies to a complaint's factual allegations, not its legal theories. It prevents lower courts from creating special, heightened pleading requirements for specific types of cases, such as civil rights claims. The ruling ensures that cases are decided on their substantive merits rather than on technical drafting errors, protecting plaintiffs from early dismissal simply for failing to cite the correct statute.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Johnson v. City of Shelby, Mississippi (2014) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. City of Shelby, Mississippi