Gomez v. Toledo

446 U.S. 635 (1980)

What's Going On?

Petitioner seeks review of a judgment affirming the dismissal of his claim against Respondent, who had qualified immunity, due to Petitioner's failure to plead that Respondent had acted in bad faith.

Who's Who?

Petitioner     :

Carlos Rivera Gomez – (original plaintiff) agent of the Puerto Rican police.

Respondent :

Toledo – (original defendant) Superintendent of the Police of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Facts:

Petitioner Carlos Rivera Gomez, an agent of the Puerto Rican police, was allegedly transferred to a position in a different location and of lesser responsibility after alerting his supervisor that two other officers had given false evidence in a criminal case under investigation. Respondent Toledo, the superintendent of the Police of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, ordered an investigation that confirmed Petitioner's allegations. Petitioner was then subpoenaed to testify as a defense witness in the criminal case arising out of the evidence that Petitioner had alleged to be false. As a result of the testimony, criminal charges were brought against Petitioner, based on information provided by Respondent, for the allegedly unlawful wiretapping of agents' phones. Respondent then suspended and subsequently discharged Petitioner without a hearing. Petitioner was found to be innocent of the wiretapping allegations, and was subsequently ordered to be reinstated with back pay. Petitioner then brought this suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that his discharge was in violation of due process and caused him anxiety, embarrassment, and injury to his reputation. § 1983 provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. The district court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), concluding that, because Respondent might be entitled to qualified immunity for acts done in good faith based on his position, Petitioner was required to plead that Respondent was motivated by bad faith in committing the alleged actions.

Issue:

Must a plaintiff plead that a defendant has acted in bad faith in order to state a claim for relief where the defendant may be entitled to qualified immunity?

Decision:

No. Nothing in the language of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suggests that a plaintiff must allege bad faith in order to state a claim for relief in an action against a public official who may be entitled to immunity. § 1983 requires only that (1) the plaintiff allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right; and (2) the plaintiff must allege that the person who has deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law. Petitioner has met these requirements by alleging that Respondent violated his right to procedural due process while acting under color of Puerto Rican law. In some instances, the court has held that public officers are entitled to a qualified immunity from damages liability under § 1983, but the court has never indicated that qualified immunity is relevant to the existence of the plaintiff's cause of action. It is only a defense available to the official in question. Petitioner does not need to anticipate such a defense by stating in his complaint that Respondent acted in bad faith because Petitioner has no way to know the subjective basis on which Respondent is acting. Reversed and Remanded.

Basic Rule:

A plaintiff is not required to plead that a defendant who may be entitled to qualified immunity acted in bad faith.

Concurrence:

The opinion should be read to leave open the issue of the burden of persuasion with respect to a defense of qualified immunity, as opposed to the burden of pleading.

Terms:

Burden of persuasion :

The duty of a party to convince the trier of facts to view the facts in a manner favorable to that party.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us