## Facts

- Joseph M. Schultea, Sr. served as chief of police in Tomball, Texas.
- In March 1992, Schultea investigated allegations that City Councilman David Robert Wood was involved in criminal activity.
- On April 8, 1992, Schultea informed City Manager Warren K. Driver about the investigation, consulted the city attorney, and sent an investigative report to the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS).
- After Schultea later sent additional information to TDPS (May 27, 1992), Wood and councilmen Homer Ford and W.F. “Slim” Plagens directed Driver to place discussion of adverse action against Schultea on the June 1, 1992 council agenda.
- The council met in closed session; the next day Driver informed Schultea he was demoted from chief to assistant chief.
- Schultea’s requests for an administrative appeal or grievance hearing were denied.
- Schultea filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the individual officials, alleging due process violations (property and liberty interests) and First Amendment retaliation for reporting suspected criminal conduct to state authorities.

## Issues

1. Whether federal pleading rules permit a requirement of factual particularity in § 1983 suits against individual officials who assert qualified immunity, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rejection of heightened pleading for municipal liability.
2. What procedural mechanism district courts may use, consistent with Rules 8 and 9, to require the factual specificity needed to decide qualified immunity at an early stage.
3. Whether the proper course is dismissal or, instead, an order requiring a more definite, immunity-focused factual response and further proceedings.

## Decision

- The en banc court held that the Supreme Court’s municipal-liability pleading decision did not foreclose requiring particularized allegations in individual-capacity suits when qualified immunity is asserted.
- The court rejected an extra-textual “heightened pleading” rule imposed at the complaint stage; any demand for detail must be implemented through existing Federal Rules mechanisms.
- The court approved use of an ordered Rule 7(a) reply, tailored to the qualified-immunity defense, to require specific, nonconclusory facts showing a violation of clearly established law.
- Applying that approach, the court directed that Schultea be required to provide a more detailed, immunity-focused factual statement (through a Rule 7(a) reply and/or amendment), rather than disposing of the case solely on conclusory pleadings.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these pleading directions.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, so courts should resolve it as early as feasible and may require focused factual allegations needed to test the defense.
- Rule 8 notice pleading governs the complaint, but once qualified immunity is raised, a court may require a plaintiff to state specific, nonconclusory facts addressing the defense.
- A district court may order a Rule 7(a) reply to an answer asserting qualified immunity; the reply must set out concrete facts (not labels or conclusions) describing each defendant’s conduct and how it violated clearly established law.
- Conclusory allegations of retaliation or conspiracy are insufficient to defeat qualified immunity without supporting facts identifying the actors, actions, timing, and causal connection.
- Where a claim depends on a protected property interest in public employment, the plaintiff must allege facts showing a contractual or legal limitation on at-will status; bare assertions are inadequate.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reconciled qualified-immunity screening with the federal pleading rules by approving a court-ordered Rule 7(a) reply requiring specific, nonconclusory factual allegations after qualified immunity is asserted, and remanded for Schultea to provide such detail rather than proceeding on conclusory pleadings or being dismissed outright.


Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc)