## Facts

- Carlos Rivera Gómez was a police agent in Puerto Rico’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
- In 1975, he gave a sworn statement asserting that two other agents had offered false evidence for use in a criminal case.
- After the statement, he was transferred away from investigative duties; an internal investigation later confirmed his allegations.
- In 1976, he testified as a defense witness that the other agents had provided false evidence.
- He was then criminally charged based on information supplied by the Superintendent of Police, suspended, and discharged without a hearing.
- The criminal case and subsequent administrative proceedings ultimately favored Gómez; an administrative commission ordered reinstatement with back pay.
- Gómez filed a damages action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Superintendent in his official capacity, alleging discharge without procedural due process that injured his employment-related interests and reputation.

## Issues

1. In a § 1983 action against a public official who may assert qualified immunity, must the plaintiff plead that the official acted in bad faith to state a claim?
2. Alternatively, is good faith (qualified immunity) an affirmative defense that the defendant must plead?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that a § 1983 plaintiff is not required to allege bad faith to state a claim.
- The Court held that qualified immunity (good faith) is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by the defendant official.
- The Court limited its holding to the burden of pleading and did not decide the allocation of the burden of persuasion at later stages.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by alleging only: (1) deprivation of a federal right, and (2) action under color of state or territorial law.
- Qualified immunity is not an element of a § 1983 claim; it is an affirmative defense.
- Under federal pleading rules, a plaintiff generally need not anticipate and negate affirmative defenses in the complaint.
- The allocation of the pleading burden is supported where immunity turns on facts largely within the defendant’s knowledge and control, including objective reasonableness and potentially subjective good faith.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 1983 requires only allegations of a federal-right deprivation and action under color of law; plaintiffs need not plead bad faith, and defendant officials must raise qualified immunity as an affirmative defense.


Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980)