Source: http://ms.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180226_0000166.NMS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:16:25+00:00

Document:
SHARION AYCOCK U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
(7) The government violated Mr. Strong's rights by waiting until an important witness in the case was incarcerated to elicit a statement from him.
For the reasons set forth below, none of these allegations state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and this case will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Mr. Strong alleges that he suffered emotional distress and defamation of character as a result of the defendants' actions. “Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution, not for violations of duties of care arising out of tort law.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979). Injury to reputation by false and defamatory statements is not a right protected by due process; as such, it is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1166, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976). The plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be free from defamation and emotional distress; as such, his claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed. Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 339 (5th Cir.2003), abrogated on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 948-49 (5th Cir.2003) (citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976)). Shinn v. College Station Indep. Sch. Dist., 96 F.3d 783, 786 (5th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (there is no freestanding constitutional right to be free from emotional distress); see also Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2005), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (a pro se prisoner plaintiff in a case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must allege more than de minimis physical injury to state a claim for psychological or emotional damages). In addition, witnesses testifying under oath enjoy absolute immunity from civil suit based upon their testimony, Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), and the news story upon which Mr. Strong bases his defamation claim merely recounts the testimony of the agents at the public hearing. For all of these reasons, Mr. Strong's claim for defamation will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1997
 § 1983
 v.