Legal Document

507 U.S. 163 113 S.Ct. 1160 122 L.Ed.2d 517 Charlene LEATHERMAN, et al., Petitionersv.TARRANT COUNTY NARCOTICS INTELLIGENCE AND COORDINATION UNIT al. No. 91-1657. Argued Jan. 12, 1993. Decided March 3, Syllabus * 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 searching homes for narcotics violated Fourth Amendment, asserting basis liability was failure adequately to train involved. The Federal District Court dismissed complaints because they failed meet "heightened pleading standard" adopted by Appeals, which requires corporations cases state with factual detail particularity claim. Appeals affirmed. Held: A federal court may not apply standard"—more stringent than usual requirements Rule Civil Procedure 8(a)—in civil rights alleging 1983. First, heightened standard cannot be justified on ground more relaxed would eviscerate municipalities' immunity from subjecting them expensive time-consuming discovery every case. Municipalities, although free respondeat superior 1983, see Monell v. New York City Dept. Social Services, 436 658, 98 2018, 56 611, do enjoy absolute or qualified suits, id., at 701, S.Ct., 2041; Owen Independence, 445 622, 650, 100 1398, 1415, 63 673. Second, it is possible square applied this case liberal system "notice pleading" set up Rules. 8(a)(2) complaint include only "a short plain statement claim showing pleader entitled relief." And while 9(b) greater certain actions, does among enumerated actions any reference Pp. ____. 954 F.2d 1054 (CA5 1992), reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Richard Gladden, Denton, TX, petitioners. Brett A. Ringle, Dallas, respondents. Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 We granted certiorari decide whether 8(a) Rules Procedure—in Rev.Stat. 1979, hold not. 2 review here decision granting motion dismiss, therefore must accept as true all allegations complaint. See United States Gaubert, 499 ----, 111 1267, 335 (1991). This action arose out separate incidents involving execution search warrants law enforcement officers. Each involved forcible entry into home based detection odors associated manufacture narcotics. One homeowner claimed he assaulted after had entered; another entered her absence killed dogs. Plaintiffs sued several capacity county employed incidents, Amendment Constitution. stated 611 (1978), these bodies Canton Harris, 489 378, 109 1197, 103 412 (1989). 3 Northern Texas ordered dismissed, required decisional Fifth Circuit. 755 F.Supp. 726 Circuit, turn, affirmed judgment dismissal, (1992), we certiorari, 505 112 2989, 120 867 resolve conflict Courts concerning applicability liability. Compare, e.g., Karim-Panahi Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 621, 624 (CA9 1988) ("a section sufficient withstand dismiss even if nothing bare allegation individual officers' conformed policy, custom, practice") (internal quotation marks omitted). now reverse. 4 Respondents seek defend Circuit's application rigorous grounds.** respondents freedom liability, Monell, supra, necessarily includes suit. In sense, assert, municipalities are no different capacity. reason requirement subject time consuming case, eviscerating disrupting functions. 5 argument wrongly equates To sure, reaffirmed municipality held liable theory." U.S., 691, 2036. But, contrary respondents' assertions, protection encompass Indeed, flatly contradicted our later decisions overruled Monroe Pape, 365 167, 81 473, 492 (1961), insofar governments were wholly immune though did reserve some form limited immunity. 2041. Yet, when took issue again 673 (1980), rejected should afforded immunity, much like officials, good faith agents. These make quite clear that, unlike various government suit—either —under short, can but unless policy custom caused constitutional injury. thus have occasion consider jurisprudence require officials. 6 contend really all. Brief Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence Coordination Unit 9-10 ("[T]he so-called 'heightened' misnomer"). According respondents, degree specificity varies according complexity underlying substantive law. establish argue, plaintiff plead single instance misconduct. requirement, insist, consistent plaintiff's 11 obligation reasonable pre-filing inquiry facts. 7 But examination makes evident just what purports be: demanding rule other kinds claims relief. F.2d, 1057-1058. Circuit Elliott Perez, 751 1472 (1985), described language: 8 "In likely defense trial judges demand why defendant-official successfully maintain immunity." Id., 1473. 9 cases, extended See, Palmer San Antonio, 810 514 (1987). 10 think impossible Conley Gibson, 355 41, 78 99, 80 (1957), said effect meant said: "[T]he claimant facts upon bases his contrary, 'a claim' will give defendant fair notice grounds rests." 47, (footnote 12 impose specific instances. It provides "[i]n averments fraud mistake, circumstances constituting mistake shall particularity." Thus, address question need Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. 13 phenomenon litigation violations employees dates where first construed allow such Perhaps rewritten today, might subjected added 9(b). result obtained process amending Rules, judicial interpretation. an amendment, courts litigants rely summary control weed unmeritorious sooner rather later. 14 reversed, remanded further proceedings opinion. 15 so ordered. syllabus constitutes part has been prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. ** also argue barred collateral estoppel. petitioners brought unsuccessful who allegedly one incidents. Petitioners respond adverse ruling currently appeal final estoppel purposes. Because neither addressed nor included questions presented, it.

Classification Label: 1