Opinion ID: 684369
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stigma Claim

Text: 29 Blackburn alleges that Williams' statement in the newspaper stigmatized him and damaged his reputation in the community, thereby depriving him of a protected liberty interest. 8 In Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 710-11, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), the Supreme Court held that the infliction of a stigma on a person's reputation by a state official, without more, does not infringe upon a protected liberty interest. As the Court in Paul stated, there is no constitutional doctrine converting every defamation by a public official into a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 702, 96 S.Ct. at 1161. 30 We have applied the holding of Paul by requiring a section 1983 plaintiff to show stigma plus an infringement of some other interest. Kacal, 928 F.2d at 701. To satisfy the stigma prong of this test, the plaintiff must prove that the stigma was caused by a false communication. Phillips v. Vandygriff, 711 F.2d 1217, 1221 (5th Cir.1983) (citing Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 97 S.Ct. 882, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977)). Moreover, we have found sufficient stigma only where a state actor has made concrete, false assertions of wrongdoing on the part of the plaintiff. Kacal, 928 F.2d at 701. 31 It is evident that the allegations of Blackburn's complaint fail to state a claim for the deprivation of a liberty interest in this respect. As a threshold matter, Blackburn cannot maintain his liberty interest claim against Oldham because his complaint does not allege that Oldham made (or caused to be made) any statement at all. As far as the remaining defendants are concerned, the allegations in Blackburn's complaint concerning Williams' statement to the newspaper do not meet the stigma requirement. Because Blackburn has grounded his liberty interest claim solely on Williams' statement to the newspaper, it must fail. In Connelly v. Comptroller of the Currency, 876 F.2d 1209, 1215 (5th Cir.1989), the plaintiff based his reputational due process claim on the defendant's statement that, We are of the opinion that Mr. Connelly does not possess the qualifications for the position.... Rejecting this claim under the stigma-plus-infringement test, we held that [t]he opinion of the [defendant] contains no false factual representations, concrete or otherwise. Id. In Wells v. Hico ISD, 736 F.2d 243 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 901, 106 S.Ct. 11, 87 L.Ed.2d 672 (1985), we observed that [t]he charges must be false and that for a charge to be stigmatizing it must be worse than merely adverse; it must be such as would give rise to 'a badge of infamy, public scorn, or the like.'  Id. at 256 & n. 16. Williams' statement voicing his opinion about Blackburn's attitude does not constitute a false factual representation. Indeed, Blackburn has made no allegation that Williams' statement is false, a prerequisite for a liberty interest-stigma claim. See Codd, 429 U.S. at 627-28, 97 S.Ct. at 884; Connelly. Further, the statement does not accuse Blackburn of any wrongdoing. It simply is not stigmatizing. Wells at 256 & n. 16. 9 Accordingly, we hold that Blackburn has failed to meet the stigma requirement of the stigma-plus-infringement test, and therefore the district court properly dismissed his liberty interest-stigma claim. 10