Gomez v. Toledo, U.S. Supreme Court (1980)
Author: Bram

Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for federal civil rights violation, 42 USC §1983.

Procedural History: District Court found no p/c as to his discharge, and Superior Court affirmed.  PL now becomes petitioner, filing § 1983 charges in seeking review on his discharge,  which resulted in reinstatement with backpay.

Petitioner now brings suit for damages on § 1983 charge for due process violation and other torts.  Respondent denied such allegations and moved for FRCP 12(b) dismissal, and District Court granted motion (thought respondent was entitled to qualified immunity).  U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit affirmed.  This Court reverses and remands.

Facts: PL agent of Puerto Rico police was transferred to police academy and given no investigative authority after alleging two agents in his department supplied false evidence.  Investigation ordered while suspended.  PL forced to defend himself for the allegations, and after hits testimony to such facts, DF discharged him without a hearing and filed criminal charges.

Issue(s): Under FRCP 8(c), upon the bringing of a 42 USC § 1983 claim against a public official whose position might entitle him to immunity, must a PL allege that the official has acted in bad faith in order to state a claim for relief?

Alternatively, does DF have to plead the claim of good faith as an affirmative defense to such a claim?

Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Public officer immunity is in only the limited cases in which an officer acts under a statute in good faith that they believed was valid, but turned out not to be valid, or for acts which were objectively believed to be lawful.  But there is nothing in §1983 which suggests PL must state bad faith in the statute in order to make a claim.  The only 2 situations where any specificity is required in the claim is that (1) PL must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal right, and (2) PL must allege that the person who deprived him of that right acted under color of state of territorial law.  PL made both allegations, by alleging a due process problem which was enacted under color of Puerto Rico law.

The Court went on to say that qualified immunity is not related to the existence of PL's cause of action; it is merely as an affirmative defense, which DF has the burden of pleading.  Thus, DF must state good faith as an affirmative defense in order to use it at trial.  DF would have to also raise the facts to which the affirmative defense would give rise.  PL has no idea what was going through DF's mind here, and thus is why DF must properly plead his affirmative defense with specific facts.

Rule: §1983 provides a cause of action for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" by any person acting "under the color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state of territory."  The purpose of the statute is to vindicate these constitutional guarantees, thus the statute should be construed positively.

Holding: No.  Nothing in §1983 says PL's must allege bad faith in a complaint, merely the deprivation of rights under color of state or territorial law.  Thus 12(b)(6) does not apply.

Yes.  Under FRCP 8(c), all affirmative defenses must be raised pre-trial.  Since good faith would be "an avoidance or affirmative defense" it must be plead or it is waived.