Defining the Boundaries of Rule 8 Pleading Requirements and Prosecutorial Immunity in §1983 Actions: Gottorff v. Michelich

Introduction

Gottorff v. Michelich, decided May 23, 2025 by the Tenth Circuit, addresses the interplay between Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8’s “short and plain statement” requirement and the doctrines of absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity, as well as Eleventh Amendment immunity, in the context of a pro se §1983 and §1985 complaint filed by a Colorado state prisoner. Plaintiff–appellant David J. Gottorff sued thirteen individuals ranging from municipal deputies and a prosecutor to state judges and officials, alleging jury-tampering, civil-rights conspiracy, abuse of criminal-justice processes, and improper issuance of protection orders against him. After two ordered amendments, the district court dismissed certain claims with prejudice on immunity grounds, dismissed others without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8, and denied leave to amend further. Gottorff’s appeal raises key issues:

What constitutes adequate compliance with Rule 8(a)(2) in a pro se civil-rights complaint?
How and when do absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity apply to claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983?
Does Eleventh Amendment immunity bar suit against state officers in their official capacities?

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed in large part, holding:

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing, under Rule 8(a)(2), the bulk of Gottorff’s second amended complaint for “vague, conclusory, and difficult to follow” allegations failing to specify who did what, when, and how.
Absolute judicial immunity barred all claims against the two state judges accused of issuing protection orders and presiding over criminal proceedings, including injunctive relief claims.
Eleventh Amendment immunity barred damages claims against the state-official defendant in his official capacity.
The district court erred, however, in dismissing with prejudice the claims against the prosecutor on absolute prosecutorial immunity grounds, because the complaint did not disclose sufficient facts to determine whether the prosecutor’s alleged actions were advocative (immune) or investigatory/administrative (not immune). Those claims must be dismissed without prejudice for Rule 8 deficiencies.
The denial of leave to file a third amended complaint was not reversible error given repeated, unsuccessful amendment and futility under Rule 8.

The court denied Gottorff’s petition for mandamus relief, granted his in forma pauperis motion, and remanded with instructions to treat the prosecutor’s claims as Rule 8 dismissals without prejudice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and 8(d)(1) – Requiring a “short and plain statement” and “simple, concise, and direct” allegations. Guided by Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents (10th Cir. 2007) on the minimal factual content needed to give fair notice to defendants.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) – Supporting dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8.
Hall v. Bellmon (10th Cir. 1991) – Mandating liberal construction of pro se pleadings but not relieving them of basic pleading requirements.
Mink v. Suthers (10th Cir. 2007) – Defining the scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity for advocative acts versus investigatory or administrative acts.
Chilcoat v. San Juan County (10th Cir. 2022) – Emphasizing the difficulty but necessity of distinguishing immune from non-immune prosecutorial conduct.
Snell v. Tunnell (10th Cir. 1990) – Recognizing the absolute immunity of judges for acts within their jurisdictional authority.
Colby v. Herrick (10th Cir. 2017) – Confirming Eleventh Amendment immunity bars official-capacity damages claims against state officers.
Roth v. King (D.C. Cir. 2006) – Extending judicial immunity to injunctive relief claims under §1983.
In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (10th Cir. 2009) – Establishing that mandamus relief is unavailable when an adequate alternative remedy (an appeal) exists.

These authorities shaped the panel’s conclusions on pleading adequacy, immunity doctrines, and the limits of mandamus.

Legal Reasoning

1. Rule 8 Compliance
The court applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to the district court’s Rule 8 dismissals. It stressed that—even for pro se litigants—a complaint must “explain what each defendant did to him; when; how it harmed him; and what specific legal right was violated.” Gottorff’s second amended complaint fell far short: allegations such as “provided significant aid” or “conspired to tamper” lacked any detail about objects, dates, or specific wrongful acts. The panel affirmed that vague, conclusory narratives cannot proceed and that repeated amendment does not supplant the need for specificity.

2. Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity
The court then examined the dismissed claims against the prosecutor. Mink requires a fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether a prosecutor’s alleged misconduct is protected. Here, the complaint offered no factual matrix to classify the prosecutor’s acts as advocative (e.g., initiating or presenting a case) versus investigatory or administrative (e.g., directing a CBI inquiry). Because the complaint itself was unclear, the panel held the district court erred in granting absolute immunity at the pleading stage—those claims belong in the Rule 8 backlog, not dismissed with prejudice.

3. Judicial Immunity
Judge defendants enjoy absolute immunity for acts within their judicial capacity, absent a “clear[] without any colorable claim of jurisdiction” exception. Gottorff’s claims targeted ordinary judicial acts—issuance of protection orders and court supervision of proceedings. Judicial immunity barred both damages and injunctive relief. The panel found no plausible argument to pierce that immunity.

4. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Official-capacity damage claims against a state official must be dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment. Gottorff’s cursory challenge to that dismissal was unavailing and waived.

Impact

Gottorff v. Michelich clarifies and reinforces several doctrinal touchstones in civil-rights litigation:

Pro se litigants remain bound by Rule 8. District courts and appellate panels will scrutinize specificity, even when construing filings liberally.
Pleading immunity defenses. Courts should not grant absolute immunity at the pleading stage unless the complaint itself transparently shows the defendant’s actions were immune. Otherwise, immunity defenses must yield to proper notice-pleading requirements.
Judicial and Eleventh Amendment immunity remain robust shields. Protecting judicial independence and state sovereignty from collateral attacks in federal court.

Future litigants must carefully tailor their complaints to identify discrete acts, dates, and legal rights implicated, and must anticipate that immunity questions will turn on the complaint’s own factual adequacy.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Absolute Immunity – A total shield from suit for certain public officials (judges, prosecutors) when performing core functions (judicial acts, advocative work).
Eleventh Amendment Immunity – Protects states and state-officials sued in their official capacity from federal-court suits for money damages.
Rule 8(a)(2) – The federal rule requiring a “short and plain statement” of a claim showing entitlement to relief; designed to give fair notice of the claim.
Colorable Claim of Jurisdiction – Even plainly wrongful judicial acts may attract immunity so long as the judge had at least a minimal legitimate jurisdictional basis.
Mandamus Relief – An extraordinary writ compelling a lower court to act only when no adequate alternative remedy (e.g., an appeal) exists.

Conclusion

Gottorff v. Michelich establishes a clear—but demanding—framework for pro se §1983 plaintiffs. Rule 8’s “short and plain statement” requirement is not relaxed by self-representation; courts will dismiss complaints that fail to tie allegations to specific wrongful acts. Immunity doctrines, while formidable, cannot be invoked at the pleading stage unless the complaint’s own allegations unambiguously place the defendant’s conduct within protected functions. This decision will guide district courts in vetting initial pleadings for clarity and in policing the boundary between actionable claims and those barred by absolute immunity or sovereign immunity.