Opinion ID: 2637971
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver of qualified immunity.

Text: McCormick argues that because Long failed to assert the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in her motion to dismiss, only mentioning it in passing, she has waived her right to this defense. In support of his argument, McCormick cites Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 64 L. Ed.2d 572, 100 S. Ct. 1920 (1980). The Gomez case dealt with the question of whether a plaintiff asserting a § 1983 claim must allege bad faith on the part of the defendant when pleading his or her case. There, the Court observed: Since qualified immunity is a defense, the burden of pleading it rests with the defendant. 446 U.S. at 640. Here, Long filed her motion to dismiss, arguing that McCormick's petition failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The district court granted the motion prior to Long filing an answer listing her affirmative defenses; thus, Long has not waived the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Furthermore, in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 150 L. Ed.2d 272, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001), the United States Supreme Court recently stated: Qualified immunity is `an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation.' Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). The privilege is `an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.' Ibid. As a result, `we repeatedly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.' Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam) . 533 U.S. at 200-01. Thus, McCormick's assertion that Long waived the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is without merit, and the question of qualified immunity is properly before this court.