## Facts

- Two Texas homeowners filed separate actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations arising from drug-search warrant executions.
- Officers forcibly entered each home based on detected odors associated with narcotics manufacturing.
- One plaintiff alleged officers assaulted him after entry.
- Another plaintiff alleged officers entered her home while she was absent and killed her two dogs.
- Plaintiffs sued a county narcotics unit and various local officials in their official capacities, plus a county and two municipalities as employers of the officers.
- Plaintiffs sought to establish municipal liability by alleging inadequate training of officers, relying on the failure-to-train theory recognized for municipal entities.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts may require § 1983 plaintiffs alleging municipal liability to plead facts with heightened “detail and particularity” beyond Rule 8(a)’s “short and plain statement” requirement.
2. Whether concerns about discovery burdens or municipal exposure justify a judicially created heightened pleading standard for municipal defendants in § 1983 cases.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that a federal court may not apply a heightened pleading standard in § 1983 actions alleging municipal liability that is more demanding than Rule 8(a).
- The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s rule requiring § 1983 municipal-liability complaints to state the basis for the claim with factual detail and particularity.
- The Court concluded that ordinary procedural tools (including discovery management, Rule 11, and summary judgment) are the proper means for dealing with weak or unsupported claims, rather than imposing special pleading rules for this category of cases.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 8(a)(2) generally requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
- Rule 9(b) imposes particularity requirements for fraud or mistake; because it does not include § 1983 municipal-liability claims, courts may not extend heightened pleading to that category by judicial decision.
- Municipalities are not subject to respondeat superior liability under § 1983, but they also do not enjoy absolute or qualified immunity from § 1983 suits; immunity-based rationales do not support extra pleading barriers for municipal defendants.
- Changes to pleading specificity requirements are for the federal rulemaking process (or legislative action), not for circuit-by-circuit judicial supplementation of the Federal Rules.

## Conclusion

The Court required § 1983 claims alleging municipal liability to be evaluated under Rule 8’s notice-pleading standard and barred courts from imposing a special heightened pleading requirement based on policy concerns such as discovery costs or municipal exposure, leaving screening of unmeritorious cases to existing procedural mechanisms.


Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intell. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (1993)