AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for Jails, Prisons and
Detention Facilities
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Defamation
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 1, 2018 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 2, 2018 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Defamation Claims Against and By Public Safety Personnel - Part 3, 2018 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
A pretrial detainee
under an Illinois Sexually Violent Person Act claimed that his constitutional
privacy rights and rights under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996),
were violated by the "stigmatizing effects" of the stamp that the
facility affixes to his outgoing mail, which reads "sexually violent
person treatment center." Rejecting this claim, a federal appeals court
ruled that the prisoner's claim was essentially for defamation, and that the
prisoner's "interest in his reputation, by itself, is not protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment." As to any claim under HIPAA, the trial court
correctly found that the statute does not provide for a private right of
action. Carpenter v. Phillips, #10-3176, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9417 (Unpub. 7th
Cir.).
New Jersey inmate could
not pursue a federal civil rights claim against prison personnel for defamation
on the basis of an allegedly false statement in his medical file that he was
suicidal. Damage to reputation alone is insufficient for a constitutional
claim. Dubois v. Vargas, No. 05-1647, 148 Fed. Appx. 111 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Prisoner's libel and slander claims against federal prison
employee for calling him a liar and a "vexatious litigant with a morally
deviant character" could not be pursued under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2671 et seq., since that statute specifically exempts
defamation claims. Beckwith v. Hart, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (D. Md. 2003). [N/R]
Virginia prison warden could not pursue, in
Virginia federal court, defamation claims against Connecticut newspapers for
publishing articles, also posted on their Internet sites, concerning
Connecticut state policy of housing some prisoners in Virginia correctional
facilities. Young v. New Haven Advocate, No. 01-2340, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir.
2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
A police officer's report that a correctional
officer was "disorderly" was insufficient to state a federal civil
rights claim for injury to the correctional officer's reputation, based on the
village's communication to the plaintiff's employer of the report. Defamation
alone is insufficient to state a federal civil rights claim and a cause of
action would only exist if the plaintiff could show stigma to his reputation,
plus other injury. In this case, injury to reputation was all that was shown.
Ruggiero v. Phillips, 739 N.Y.S.2d 797 (A.D. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner did not present a valid claim for
defamation based on Department of Corrections' truthful description of him, on
its website, as a "convicted robber." The fact that the prisoner had
a pending appeal from his conviction did not alter the result, and, once he was
convicted, he was no longer entitled to a "presumption of innocence."
Wells v. Goord, #01-172, 29 Federal Appendix 693 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2002
JB Jun]
N.Y. appeals court rules that plaintiff
correctional officer adequately showed that non-profit legal services
corporation defamed him with "actual malice" in sending letter
listing him as an officer who used excessive force; jury award of $150,000 in
compensatory and $150,000 in punitive damages reduced, however, to $35,000 in
compensatory damages only. Sweeney v. Prisoners' Legal Services of New York,
Inc., 610 N.Y.S.2d 628 (A.D. 1994).
Georgia inmate could not sue correctional officer
for writing allegedly defamatory disciplinary reports about him; state statute
barred liability for libel or slander by state employees acting within the
scope of their employment. Howard v. Burch, 436 S.E.2d 573 (Ga. App. 1993).
Michigan court holds that correctional officers
are absolutely immune from liability for defamation for statements made in
misconduct report utilized in disciplinary process; officer not liable for
writing report accusing two inmates of sodomy. Couch v. Schultz, 483 N.W.2d 684
(Mich. App. 1992).
Prison supervisor's mistaken statements to other
prisoners implying that inmate was homosexual were defamatory, but protected by
a qualified privilege when made in response to prisoners' request to move into
plaintiff-inmate's cell. Key v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 62 Ohio Misc.
2d 242, 598 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1990).
Department of Corrections and its employees were
immune from liability for placing memo in inmate's file alleging that his
female attorney was romantically involved with him. Indiana Dept. of Correction
v. Stagg, 556 N.E.2d 1338 (Ind. App. 1990).
Prison officials entitled to qualified immunity
for disseminating "confidential information" that inmate had
allegedly assaulted his daughters during family visit. Smith v. Coughlin, 727
F.Supp. 834 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Inmates could sue corrections officer for defamation
for filing misconduct report charging them with sodomy, despite disciplinary
hearing finding of guilt. Couch v. Schultz, 439 N.W.2d 296 (Mich. App. 1989).