Opinion ID: 164589
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claims Against District Attorney Henry

Text: 85 The district court dismissed all of Mr. Montgomery's federal and state law claims against Gary Henry in his official and individual capacity. On appeal, Mr. Montgomery appears to only challenge the dismissal of the state law defamation claim. 86 Mr. Montgomery's state law claim appears to stem from Mr. Henry's statements to the press that Mr. Montgomery was withholding information in a criminal investigation and that his refusal to interview could be viewed as an attempt to obstruct this investigation. Aplt's App. vol. II, at 532-533. Under Oklahoma law, public officials such as Mr. Henry are immune from tort liability for actions taken within the scope of their employment. Mitchell v. City of Moore, Oklahoma, 218 F.3d 1190, 1201 (10th Cir.2000) (citing Okla. Stat. Ann. § 153). Here, the acts complained of were a part of the district attorney's investigation and an intrinsic part of his prosecutorial function. We hold that Mr. Henry's statements to the press were within the scope of his employment and that Mr. Henry is thus immune from the state law tort claims. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the state law claims against Mr. Henry. 87