Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04406/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04406-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim Brown
Appellant
James Simmons
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4406

___________

Jim Brown, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

James Simmons, individually and in *

his Official Capacity as Superintendent *

of the Conway Public School District, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 15, 2007

Filed: February 23, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Jim Brown (Brown), a teacher, filed a complaint alleging James Simmons, the

superintendent of the Conway (Arkansas) Public School District, infringed Brown’s

procedural due process rights by denying Brown a name-clearing hearing after Brown

was stigmatized by defamatory statements made by other school officials. In other

Appellate Case: 05-4406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281478
1

See Gunderson v. Hvass, 339 F.3d 639, 644 (8th Cir. 2003). 

2

The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

words, Brown filed a “stigma plus” claim.1

 The district court2 dismissed Brown’s

complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm. 

 We review de novo the dismissal of a claim under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). Botten v. Shorma, 440 F.3d 979, 980 (8th Cir. 2006). We accept

all factual allegations in the complaint as true and grant every reasonable inference in

favor of the nonmovant. Knieriem v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 434 F.3d 1058, 1060

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2969 (2006). To state a claim upon which relief can

be granted, each element of the claim must be pled in the complaint. See Dura

Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 336, 346-47 (2005); Penn v. Iowa State Bd. of

Regents, 999 F.2d 305, 307 (8th Cir. 1993). 

Defaming a governmental employee’s reputation, good name, honor, or

integrity in connection with terminating the employee, without giving the employee

a name-clearing hearing, is a deprivation of the employee’s constitutionally protected

liberty interest. Winskowski v. City of Stephen, 442 F.3d 1107, 1109-10 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 435 (2006); see Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573

(1972). To state a “stigma plus” claim, the employee must allege: (1) an official made

a defamatory statement that resulted in a stigma; (2) the defamatory statement

occurred during the course of terminating the employee; (3) the defamatory statement

was made public, Mascho v. Gee, 24 F.3d 1037, 1039 (8th Cir. 1994); and (4) an

alteration or extinguishment of a right or legal status, Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711

(1976).

Appellate Case: 05-4406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281478
3

In Brown’s response to the motion to dismiss, Brown alleged he had been

transferred and lost pay. The district court concluded Brown’s allegations, “even if

accepted, are insufficient to trigger the protection of the due process clause.” See

generally Hughes v. Whitmer, 714 F.2d 1407, 1417 (8th Cir. 1983) (stating “the

constitution does not require the government to give to its stigmatized employee a

hearing if the public employee remains a public employee” and holding “the internal

transfer of an employee, unless [the transfer] constitutes such a change of status as to

be regarded essentially as a loss of employment, does not . . . give rise to a liberty

interest meriting protection under the due process clause” (quotation omitted)). The

district court’s alternative holding, which considered matters outside of the pleadings,

did not convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b); Casazza v. Kiser, 313 F.3d 414, 417-18 (8th Cir. 2002) (“[A] district

court does not convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment . . .

when the district court makes clear that it ruled only on the motion to dismiss.”

(citations omitted)). 

-3-

Here, Brown’s complaint failed to allege any alteration or extinguishment of a

right or legal status.3

 Because Brown did not allege each element of his “stigma plus”

claim, Brown failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Dura

Pharm., 544 U.S. at 346-47; Penn, 999 F.2d at 307. Injury to a person’s reputation

alone is not sufficient to trigger the procedural protections of the due process clause.

Paul, 424 U.S. at 701-02, 706, 709-10; Gunderson v. Hvass, 339 F.3d 639, 644 (8th

Cir. 2003). 

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Brown’s complaint. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4406 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Entry ID: 3281478