Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1980

Gomez v. Toledo

446 U.S. 635 | 100 S. Ct. 1920 | 64 L. Ed. 2d 572 | 1980 U.S. LEXIS 104

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that bad faith is not an element of a § 1983 claim: an official who seeks qualified immunity must raise it as an affirmative defense.

Background

Carlos Rivera Gomez, a Puerto Rico police agent, alleged that he reported fellow officers for offering false evidence in a criminal investigation. Afterward, he was transferred to positions without investigative authority. The Police Department’s Legal Division allegedly concluded that Gomez’s factual allegations were true, and Gomez later testified in a criminal trial that the evidence was false.

Following that testimony, Gomez was charged with unlawful wiretapping based on information supplied by the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent suspended Gomez and then discharged him without a hearing. Puerto Rico courts found no probable cause for the wiretapping charge, and the Puerto Rico Investigation, Prosecution, and Appeals Commission later revoked the discharge and ordered Gomez reinstated with backpay.

Gomez then brought a damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his discharge deprived him of procedural due process and caused personal and reputational injury. The District Court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), reasoning that an official eligible for qualified immunity could be sued only if the plaintiff alleged bad faith. The First Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits over who must plead good faith or bad faith in a qualified-immunity case.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a § 1983 plaintiff must allege that a public official acted in bad faith when the official may claim qualified immunity.

Holding

No. A plaintiff need not plead bad faith to state a § 1983 claim; qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that the defendant official must plead.

Reasoning

Section 1983 requires only two allegations to state a claim: that the plaintiff was deprived of a right secured by federal law, and that the defendant acted under color of state or territorial law. Gomez satisfied both requirements by alleging that the Superintendent, acting under Puerto Rican law, discharged him in violation of procedural due process. Neither § 1983's text nor its history adds bad faith as an element of the plaintiff's claim.

Qualified immunity does not negate the existence of a constitutional claim. Rather, it is a defense available to certain public officials in limited circumstances, grounded in common-law immunities and policy considerations. The Court's prior cases had consistently described qualified immunity as a defense, not as a pleading element that a plaintiff must disprove at the outset.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), a defendant must plead matters that avoid liability or constitute affirmative defenses. An official claiming qualified immunity must therefore assert that defense and allege the facts supporting it, including an objectively reasonable basis for believing the conduct lawful and, under the qualified-immunity doctrine then applicable, a good-faith belief in its lawfulness.

Placing the burden on the official is also practical and fair. The grounds for an official's asserted good faith—such as advice of counsel, state or local law, administrative practice, or the official's own beliefs—are often uniquely within the official's knowledge and control. A plaintiff cannot reasonably be required to anticipate and negate facts that may be unknown when the complaint is filed.