Opinion ID: 2367244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Insufficient Pleading

Text: ¶ 68 The district court dismissed Mr. Howe's Fourteenth Amendment stigma plus claim and his First Amendment non-retaliation action on the basis that neither claim was sufficiently pled under Utah's notice pleading standard. Specifically, the district court found that Mr. Howe raised both of these claims for the first time in his pleading in opposition to Salt Lake City's motion for summary judgment. ¶ 69 A plaintiff is required, under our liberal standard of notice pleading, to submit a `short and plain statement ... showing that the pleader is entitled to relief' and `a demand for judgment for the relief.' Canfield v. Layton City, 2005 UT 60, ¶ 14, 122 P.3d 622 (quoting Utah R. Civ. P. 8(a)). The plaintiff must provide the defendant fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds of the claim and a general indication of the type of litigation involved. Williams v. State Farm Ins. Co., 656 P.2d 966, 970 (Utah 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 70 We have not previously had an opportunity to review how Utah's liberal pleading standard interacts with claims pled under § 1983. Claims sounding in § 1983 pose a greater likelihood of failures in notice and plausibility because they typically include complex claims against multiple defendants. Robbins v. Okla. ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs., 519 F.3d 1242, 1249 (10th Cir.2008). Despite the complex nature of these claims, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose no heightened pleading standard for § 1983 actions. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intell. & Coord. Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993) (holding the federal rules only require 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 (internal quotation marks omitted)). We think the federal conclusion is appropriate and therefore hold that the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure likewise do not impose a heightened pleading standard on claims sounding in § 1983. [13] Thus, all that is required of a plaintiff bringing a § 1983 cause of action is to give the opposition fair notice of the claims against them. Williams, 656 P.2d at 971. ¶ 71 Having settled the pleading requirement for a § 1983 claim under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, we turn to the merits of the district court's dismissal, first addressing Mr. Howe's nonretaliation claim and then his stigma plus action.