(PC) Dominguez v. Osgood, No. 2:2009cv01927 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/30/2010 ORDERING that the clerk assign a district judge to this case; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed w/out prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
(PC) Dominguez v. Osgood Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAUL JESUS DOMINGUEZ, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. 2:09-cv-1927 KJN P JEFF OSGOOD, 14 Defendant. 15 16 ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a jail inmate proceeding in forma pauperis and without counsel with a 17 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s May 6, 2010 amended complaint is 18 before the court. 19 Plaintiff contends that defendant divulged plaintiff’s name to the press, 20 wrongfully claiming plaintiff is a member of a gang. Plaintiff argues this violated his 21 constitutional rights. 22 However, defamation alone does not present a cognizable constitutional claim 23 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when done under color of state law. Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 24 701-10 (1976); see also Franklin v. State of Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (no 25 subject matter jurisdiction over claim of slander by police officer as no violation of federal right). 26 Damage to reputation alone is not actionable under § 1983 unless it is accompanied by some 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 more tangible interest. Paul, 424 U.S. at 701; see also Patton v. County of Kings, 857 F.2d 1379, 2 1381 (9th Cir. 1988) (defamation by state actors unrelated to any lost employment unactionable); 3 Havas v. Thornton, 609 F.2d 372, 375 (9th Cir. 1979) (defamation by government official 4 unrelated to refusal to hire not actionable). 5 6 As plaintiff has solely alleged defamation which is not linked to the deprivation of a federally protected right, no cognizable claim is presented and this action should be dismissed. 7 8 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 13 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 14 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 15 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 16 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 17 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 DATED: August 30, 2010 19 20 21 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 domi1927.56 24 25 26 2