TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Arnold R. Duncan v. Cindy Pope

Duncan v. Pope, 805 F.2d 1034 (6th Cir. 1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 8, 1986
Docket
No. 85-5505
Citations
805 F.2d 10341986 WL 181081986 U.S. App. LEXIS 31980
Status
Unpublished

Opinion

805 F.2d 1034

Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Arnold R. DUNCAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cindy POPE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 85-5505.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 8, 1986.

Before MERRITT, GUY and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER 1

This Tennessee state prisoner appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his suit filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for failure to state a violation of his constitutional rights.

2

Seeking monetary relief, plaintiff sued a probation officer claiming that she had defamed the plaintiff by testifying against the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding and telling a news reporter afterwards that he had been involved in criminal activity since he was twelve years old and had a lengthy criminal record.

3

Upon review of the cause in light of the arguments made by the parties in their respective appellate briefs, this Court concludes that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint for the reasons stated by it. A claim for defamation is clearly not cognizable under the Federal Constitution and is, therefore, not actionable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976); Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. of Louisville v. Moulton, 773 F.2d 692 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 1639 (1986). To the extent the defendants' statements were made in her capacity as a witness in a court proceeding, she also enjoys absolute immunity from a suit for damages. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983).

4

For these reasons, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not necessary in this appeal. Rule 35(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The district court's judgment is, accordingly, affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(d)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) 4,259
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) 1,887
Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co. Of Louisville v. C. Mike Moulton Louis J. Hollenbach Billy G. Wellman, 773 F.2d 692 (6th Cir. 1985) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list