From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit

U.S.
Mar 3, 1993
507 U.S. 163 (1993)

Summary

holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities

Summary of this case from Gorski v. N.H. Dept. of Corrs.

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 91-1657

Argued January 12, 1993 Decided March 3, 1993

Petitioner homeowners filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents — local officials acting in their official capacity, a county, and two municipal corporations — alleging that the conduct of local police officers in searching their homes for narcotics violated the Fourth Amendment, and asserting that the basis for municipal liability was the failure adequately to train the police officers involved. The Federal District Court dismissed the complaints because they failed to meet the "heightened pleading standard" adopted by the Court of Appeals, which requires that complaints against municipal corporations in § 1983 cases state with factual detail and particularity the basis for the claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: A federal court may not apply a "heightened pleading standard" — more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) — in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under § 1983. First, the heightened standard cannot be justified on the ground that a more relaxed pleading standard would eviscerate municipalities' immunity from suit by subjecting them to expensive and time-consuming discovery in every § 1983 case. Municipalities, although free from respondeat superior liability under § 1983, see Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, do not enjoy absolute or qualified immunity from § 1983 suits, id., at 701; Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 650. Second, it is not possible to square the heightened standard applied in this case with the liberal system of "notice pleading" set up by the Federal Rules. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint include only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." And while Rule 9(b) requires greater particularity in pleading certain actions, it does not include among the enumerated actions any reference to complaints alleging municipal liability under § 1983. Pp. 165-169.

954 F.2d 1054, reversed and remanded.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Richard Gladden argued the cause pro hac vice for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Don Gladden.

Brett A. Ringle argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondents Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit et al. was Dixon W. Holman. Kevin J. Keith filed a brief for respondent City of Grapevine, Texas, and Tim G. Sralla and Wayne K. Olson filed a brief for respondent City of Lake Worth, Texas.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Texas et al. by Dan Morales, Attorney General, Will Pryor, First Assistant Attorney General, Mary F. Keller, Deputy Attorney General, Adrian L. Young, Michael P. Hodge, Sharon Felfe, and Ann Kraatz, Assistant Attorneys General, and for the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Jimmy Evans of Alabama, Charles E. Cole of Alaska, Winston Bryant of Arkansas, Daniel E. Lungren of California, Robert A. Marks of Hawaii, Robert T. Stephan of Kansas, Nicholas J. Spaeth of North Dakota, Ernest D. Preate, Jr., of Pennsylvania, James E. O'Neil of Rhode Island, T. Travis Medlock of South Carolina, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, Paul Van Dam of Utah, Jeffrey L. Amestroy of Vermont, Mary Sue Terry of Virginia, Mario J. Palumbo of West Virginia, James E. Doyle of Wisconsin, and Joseph B. Meyer of Wyoming; for the City of College Station, Texas, by Catherine Locke; for the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers et al. by Richard Ruda; and for the Texas Municipal League et al. by Susan M. Horton.


We granted certiorari to decide whether a federal court may apply a "heightened pleading standard" — more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We hold it may not.

We review here a decision granting a motion to dismiss, and therefore must accept as true all the factual allegations in the complaint. See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 327 (1991). This action arose out of two separate incidents involving the execution of search warrants by local law enforcement officers. Each involved the forcible entry into a home based on the detection of odors associated with the manufacture of narcotics. One homeowner claimed that he was assaulted by the officers after they had entered; another claimed that the police had entered her home in her absence and killed her two dogs. Plaintiffs sued several local officials in their official capacity and the county and two municipal corporations that employed the police officers involved in the incidents, asserting that the police conduct had violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The stated basis for municipal liability under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), was the failure of these bodies to adequately train the police officers involved. See Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989).

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered the complaints dismissed because they failed to meet the "heightened pleading standard" required by the decisional law of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 755 F. Supp. 726 (1991). The Fifth Circuit, in turn, affirmed the judgment of dismissal, 954 F.2d 1054 (1992), and we granted certiorari, 505 U.S. 1203 (1992), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals concerning the applicability of a heightened pleading standard to § 1983 actions alleging municipal liability. Cf., e.g., Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 624 (CA9 1988) ("[A] claim of municipal liability under section 1983 is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss even if the claim is based on nothing more than a bare allegation that the individual officers' conduct conformed to official policy, custom, or practice") (internal quotation marks omitted). We now reverse.

Respondents seek to defend the Fifth Circuit's application of a more rigorous pleading standard on two grounds. First, respondents claim that municipalities' freedom from respondeat superior liability, see Monell, supra, necessarily includes immunity from suit. In this sense, respondents assert, municipalities are no different from state or local officials sued in their individual capacity. Respondents reason that a more relaxed pleading requirement would subject municipalities to expensive and time-consuming discovery in every § 1983 case, eviscerating their immunity from suit and disrupting municipal functions.

Respondents also argue that certain claims are barred by collateral estoppel. According to respondents, petitioners brought an unsuccessful civil rights action against two of the police officers who allegedly were involved in one of the incidents. Petitioners respond that the adverse Page 166 ruling in this other litigation is currently on appeal, and thus is not final for collateral estoppel purposes. Because this issue was neither addressed by the Fifth Circuit nor included in the questions presented, we will not consider it.

This argument wrongly equates freedom from liability with immunity from suit. To be sure, we reaffirmed in Monell that "a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory." 436 U.S., at 691. But, contrary to respondents' assertions, this protection against liability does not encompass immunity from suit. Indeed, this argument is flatly contradicted by Monell and our later decisions involving municipal liability under § 1983. In Monell, we overruled Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), insofar as it held that local governments were wholly immune from suit under § 1983, though we did reserve decision on whether municipalities are entitled to some form of limited immunity. 436 U.S., at 701. Yet, when we took that issue up again in Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 650 (1980), we rejected a claim that municipalities should be afforded qualified immunity, much like that afforded individual officials, based on the good faith of their agents. These decisions make it quite clear that, unlike various government officials, municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit — either absolute or qualified — under § 1983. In short, a municipality can be sued under § 1983, but it cannot be held liable unless a municipal policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. We thus have no occasion to consider whether our qualified immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in cases involving individual government officials.

Second, respondents contend that the Fifth Circuit's heightened pleading standard is not really that at all. See Brief for Respondents Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit et al. 9-10 ("[T]he Fifth Circuit's so-called `heightened' pleading requirement is a misnomer"). According to respondents, the degree of factual specificity required of a complaint by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure varies according to the complexity of the underlying substantive law. To establish municipal liability under § 1983, respondents argue, a plaintiff must do more than plead a single instance of misconduct. This requirement, respondents insist, is consistent with a plaintiff's Rule 11 obligation to make a reasonable pre-filing inquiry into the facts.

But examination of the Fifth Circuit's decision in this case makes it quite evident that the "heightened pleading standard" is just what it purports to be: a more demanding rule for pleading a complaint under § 1983 than for pleading other kinds of claims for relief. See 954 F.2d, at 1057-1058. This rule was adopted by the Fifth Circuit in Elliott v. Perez, 751 F.2d 1472 (1985), and described in this language:

"In cases against governmental officials involving the likely defense of immunity, we require of trial judges that they demand that the plaintiff's complaints state with factual detail and particularity the basis for the claim, which necessarily includes why the defendant official cannot successfully maintain the defense of immunity." Id., at 1473.

In later cases, the Fifth Circuit extended this rule to complaints against municipal corporations asserting liability under § 1983. See, e.g., Palmer v. San Antonio, 810 F.2d 514 (1987).

We think that it is impossible to square the "heightened pleading standard" applied by the Fifth Circuit in this case with the liberal system of "notice pleading" set up by the Federal Rules. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint include only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." In Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), we said in effect that the Rule meant what it said:

"[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is "a short and plain statement of the claim" that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Id., at 47 (footnote omitted).

Rule 9(b) does impose a particularity requirement in two specific instances. It provides that, "[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity." Thus, the Federal Rules do address in Rule 9(b) the question of the need for greater particularity in pleading certain actions, but do not include among the enumerated actions any reference to complaints alleging municipal liability under § 1983. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The phenomenon of litigation against municipal corporations based on claimed constitutional violations by their employees dates from our decision in Monell, supra, where we for the first time construed § 1983 to allow such municipal liability. Perhaps if Rules 8 and 9 were rewritten today, claims against municipalities under § 1983 might be subjected to the added specificity requirement of Rule 9(b). But that is a result which must be obtained by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation. In the absence of such an amendment, federal courts and litigants must rely on summary judgment and control of discovery to weed out unmeritorious claims sooner rather than later.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit

U.S.
Mar 3, 1993
507 U.S. 163 (1993)

holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities

Summary of this case from Gorski v. N.H. Dept. of Corrs.

holding that a federal court may not impose a standard more stringent than the pleading requirements of Rule 8 in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Summary of this case from In re Nationsmart Corporation Sec. Litigation

holding that a heightened standard of pleading, judicially created, is not permitted in civil rights cases

Summary of this case from GNB Battery Technologies, Inc. v. Gould, Inc.

holding that Monell claims are not subject to a heightened pleading standard

Summary of this case from Maze v. Garber

holding that plaintiffs need only state "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" and do not need to conform to any sort of "heightened pleading standard ... in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability"

Summary of this case from Ramirez v. Escajeda

holding that while no heightened pleading standard applies to Monell claims, the complaint must still "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

Summary of this case from Dixon v. Buncich

holding that a federal court may not apply a heightened pleading standard in Section 1983 civil rights cases filed against municipalities

Summary of this case from Blasi v. Borough of Pen Argyl

holding that Rule 9 heightened pleading standard only applies to claims of fraud or mistake

Summary of this case from Unity Healthcare, Inc. v. Cnty. of Hennepin

holding that federal courts cannot impose a pleading requirement more stringent in Monell cases than that imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Summary of this case from Doe v. Dantin

holding that while no heightened pleading standard applies to Monell claims, the complaint must still "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

Summary of this case from Freeman v. City of Crown Point

holding that while no heightened pleading standard applies to Monell claims, the complaint must still "give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

Summary of this case from Ashcraft v. City of Crown Point

holding that "unlike various government officials, municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit—either absolute or qualified—under § 1983"

Summary of this case from Tuma v. Jackson Mun. Airport Auth.

holding that notice pleading is sufficient for suits against local governments pursuant to § 1983

Summary of this case from Dipippa v. Union Sch. Dist.

holding that no heightened pleading standard apart from the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 8 may be applied to Monell claims

Summary of this case from Kimbrough v. Town of Dewitt Police Department

holding that heightened pleading standard does not apply to municipal liability claims under § 1983

Summary of this case from Fletcher v. Michigan Department of Corrections

holding that a municipality may not be sued under § 1983 "unless a municipal policy or custom caused the constitutional injury"

Summary of this case from Cunningham v. North Versailles Township

holding that notice pleading is sufficient for suits against local governments pursuant to § 1983

Summary of this case from SF v. Delaware Valley School District

holding that a court may not apply a pleading standard more stringent than that imposed by Rule 8 to a Section 1983 claim asserting municipal liability

Summary of this case from Artubel v. Colonial Bank Group, Inc.

holding that courts may not apply a heightened pleading standard in civil rights cases since it conflicts with the liberal system of notice pleading set up by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Summary of this case from Behrend v. Comcast Corp.

holding that there is no heightened pleading standard in § 1983 claims against municipalities; Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only that the complaint include "`a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."

Summary of this case from Hayes v. Erie County Office of Children Youth

holding that § 1983 claims are subject not to a heightened pleading standard, but only to Rule 8's requirement of a "short and plain statement"

Summary of this case from Scott v. District of Columbia

holding federal courts and litigants must rely on summary judgment and control of discovery to weed out unmeritorious § 1983 claims sooner rather than later

Summary of this case from Kasteleba v. John

holding notice pleading of policy in violation is sufficient for Section 1983 suits against local governments

Summary of this case from Jones v. Nat. Commun. Surveillance Networks

holding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require heightened pleading requirements for § 1983 claims, or any other claims, with the exception of those set forth in FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b)

Summary of this case from Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Technologies Int'l

holding that a court may not apply a heightened pleading standard more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of Rule 8 in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under § 1983

Summary of this case from St. Louis v. Sands
Case details for

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit

Case Details

Full title:LEATHERMAN, ET AL. v . TARRANT COUNTY NARCOTICS INTELLIGENCE AND…

Court:U.S.

Date published: Mar 3, 1993

Citations

507 U.S. 163 (1993)
113 S. Ct. 1160

Citing Cases

Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson

Appellees defend the district court's dismissal on the grounds that the Jordans' complaint did not adequately…

McGrath v. MacDonald

On a motion to dismiss, civil rights claims are subject only to normal standards of pleading. Leatherman v.…