Concannon v. Capuano, Civ. A. No. 93-12389-H.

• Decision Date: 20 January 1994
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 93-12389-H.
• Citation: 840 F. Supp. 178
• Parties: David CONCANNON, Plaintiff, v. Michael CAPUANO, Robert Trahan and Paul Trane, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

840 F. Supp. 178

David CONCANNON, Plaintiff, v. Michael CAPUANO, Robert Trahan and Paul Trane, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 93-12389-H.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

January 20, 1994.

Isaiah Shalom, Cambridge, MA, for plaintiff.

Robert E. Holland, John Foskett, Deutsch, Williams, Brooks, DeRensis, Holland & Drachman, Boston, MA, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HARRINGTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Michael Capuano, Robert Trahan, and Paul Trane's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff David Concannon's Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is granted.

Plaintiff Concannon, a former employee of the Department of Public Works of the City of Somerville, has filed a two-count Complaint against Capuano, Somerville's Mayor; Trahan, its Commissioner of Public Works; and Trane, its Communications Director, alleging common law defamation and a violation of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he was defamed when defendants, acting under the color of state law, accused him, in a series of newspaper articles, of stealing municipally-held, surplus food intended for needy persons in the City. The articles were published in various newspapers between the dates of March 21, 1991 and March 12, 1992. Plaintiff claims that as a result of these allegedly defamatory articles he suffered mental and emotional distress that rendered him unable to work beginning January, 1992; that he exhausted his sick leave on May 27, 1992; and that he then went on unpaid leave of absence until December 14, 1992, when he was terminated for failure to return to work. Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the allegedly defamatory remarks and the deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest.

In Paul v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that damage to reputation alone cannot state a claim for relief under Section 1983 because reputation is neither "liberty" nor "property" protected by the Due Process Clause. 424 U.S. 693, 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1160, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976). In order to invoke the procedural protection of the Due Process Clause, reputational injury must coincide with the alteration of a more tangible interest, such as employment. Id. Where the injury to reputation is coupled with the loss of employment, the Court required that the defamation "occur in the course of the termination of employment." Id. at 710, 96 S.Ct. at 1165.

Consistent with Paul, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, in Section 1983 claims predicated on defamation, has stated that a sufficient nexus must exist between the allegedly defamatory remarks and the constitutional deprivation. See Celia v. O'Malley, 918 F.2d 1017, 1021 (1st Cir.1990) (finding that allegedly defamatory remarks and constitutional deprivation were closely connected in timing and substance); Brennan v. Hendrigan, 888 F.2d 189, 196 (1st Cir.1989) (holding that defamatory statements must be made in course of dismissal); Laureano-Agosto v. Garcia-Caraballo, 731 F.2d 101, 104 (1st Cir.1984) (adopting Paul's "in the course of termination" standard). Other circuit courts of appeal are also in accord that injurious statements must have a proper connection with the deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest. See Gobel v. Maricopa County, 867 F.2d 1201, 1205 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that a proper Section 1983 claim alleges a link between the false statements and the deprivation); Marrero v. City of Hialeah, 625 F.2d 499, 519 (5th Cir.1980) (stating that defamatory communication need not cause loss of protected interest but must occur in connection with the alteration of the interest).

Here, the plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to allege a sufficient connection between the allegedly defamatory articles and plaintiff's loss of employment. Plaintiff's proffered link between the alleged defamation and his discharge is the...