Opinion ID: 162851
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiffs' Defamation Claim

Text: 55 We also lack jurisdiction over plaintiffs' defamation claim. First, there is no federal basis for this claim. Mere injury to reputation cannot support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) ([P]etitioners' defamatory publications, however seriously they may have harmed respondent's reputation, did not deprive him of any `liberty' or `property' interests protected by the Due Process Clause.); Setliff v. Mem'l Hosp. of Sheridan County, 850 F.2d 1384, 1396 (10th Cir.1988) ( `[R]eputation alone, apart from some more tangible interests such as employment,' is not subject to the requirements of due process.) (citing Paul, 424 U.S. at 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155). Second, we may not consider plaintiffs' defamation claim under Oklahoma state law. All parties to this suit are Oklahoma domiciliaries and thus, we may not exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, because we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' constitutional and preemption claims, we also lack jurisdiction over their defamation claim.