UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN KENNETH JOHNSON, :

:

Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-05-0837

:

vs. : (Complaint Filed 04/27/05) 

: (Judge Muir)

DENNIS WIEDERHOLD, et al., :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

February 8, 2006 

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiff, an inmate presently confined in the

Schuylkill County Prison, Pottsville, Pennsylvania, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

named defendants are Pottsville Police Officers Wiederhold

and Yodder, and Schuylkill County Correctional Officer, Lt.

Rizzardi. 

Johnson alleges that the Pottsville Police Officers

subjected him to excessive force in effectuating his arrest.

He further claims that these officers informed Lt. Rizzardi

that plaintiff was a “baby rapper (sic) and a “diddler” and

that Lt. Rizzardi repeated this to other inmates, thereby

impugning plaintiff's character. (Doc. No. 1, complaint). 

Case 4:05-cv-00837-MM-DB Document 37 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 4
2

Specifically, with respect to defendant Rizzardi,

Johnson states that on December 23, 2004, defendant Rizzardi

“walked the plaintiff down to F-Block and screamed this guy

is a diddler”, which plaintiff claims is “a baby rapper

(sic).” (Doc. No. 1, complaint). He claims that defendant

Rizzardi “screamed it so other inmates heard him.” Id.

Plaintiff states that “this in not [his] charge, and that

“this is prejudice and unlawful.” Id. Attached to

Johnson's complaint are copies of grievances he filed

regarding his claim against Lt. Rizzardi. One of the

grievances evinces plaintiff's claim of slander: “You

misunderstood. The civil suit is for slander....” (Doc. No.

1, complaint at p. 9). On April 27, 2005, Johnson filed the

instant action in which he seeks compensatory and punitive

damages. 

Presently before the court is a motion to dismiss, filed

on behalf of defendant, Lt. Rizzardi. The motion is fully

briefed and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set

forth below, the motion will be granted and defendant

Rizzardi will be dismissed from this action. 

Case 4:05-cv-00837-MM-DB Document 37 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 4
3

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for

the dismissal of claims that fail to assert a basis upon

which relief can be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

When deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, the court is required to accept as true all of the

factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable

inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Langford vs. City

of Atlantic City, 235 F.3d 845, 847 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing

Nami vs. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996)). “The

complaint will be deemed to have alleged sufficient facts if

it adequately put[s] the defendant on notice of the

essential elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id.

The court will not dismiss a complaint for failure to state

a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that “no relief

could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved

consistent with the allegations.” Swierkiewicz vs. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002). Consistent with these

principles, the court must grant leave to amend before

dismissing a claim that is merely deficient. See Shane vs.

Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 116-17 (3d Cir. 2000). 

Case 4:05-cv-00837-MM-DB Document 37 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 4
Johnson's defamation claim is founded in tort law. The

United States Supreme Court has emphasized: "We have

previously rejected reasoning that 'would make of the

Fourteenth Amendment a font of tort law to be superimposed

upon whatever systems may already be administered by the

States.' " Daniels vs. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1986)

(quoting Paul vs. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 (1976)).

Moreover, a person does not have a Constitutionally

protected interest in his or her reputation. Paul, 424 U.S.

at 701-02. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim of slander or

defamation do not rise to the level of a constitutional

deprivation. Paul, supra; Church vs. Hamilton, 444 F.2d 103

(3d Cir. 1971). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion to dismiss filed by defendant,

Lt. Rizzardi (Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to

terminate defendant, Lt. Rizzardi as a

party to this action. 

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00837-MM-DB Document 37 Filed 02/08/06 Page 4 of 4