Opinion
No. C-1-99-555
September 12, 2002
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 5). Plaintiff filed his Memorandum in Opposition (doc. 7) and Defendants filed a Reply Brief (doc. 10). Defendants also filed Supplemental Authority (doc. 11).
Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In determining a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 858(6th Cir. 1976). "A motion to dismiss should not be granted `unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Isaac v. Conrad , 39 F. Supp.2d 1025, 1027(S.D.Ohio 1999)(citing, Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 44-45 (1957); see Scheuer v. Rhodes , 416 U.S. 232, 236(1974). Plaintiff Quinn brings this action "pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which provides a remedy for violations of constitutional rights committed under color of state law." Doc. 1. Plaintiff Quinn alleges that various elected and appointed City and County officials issued statements that conveyed the impression that Plaintiff was a "corrupt public administrator." Doc. 1. Plaintiff alleges that on April 28, 1998 Plaintiff Quinn communicated to Defendant Shirey that Plaintiff Quinn was innocent of any allegations and "requested that the City defer any action . . . ." On April 29, 1998 Plaintiff submitted written notice of his resignation.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ludwig v. Bd. of Trustees of Ferris State University , 123 F.3d 404, 409(1997), instructed that "[a]n injury to a person's reputation, good name, honor or integrity constitutes the deprivation of a liberty interest when the injury occurs in connection with an employee's termination." (citing, Board of Regents v. Roth , 408 U.S. 564, 573(1972). A liberty interest is implicated when: stigmatizing statements are made in conjunction with the termination; the statements might seriously damage the employees standing or foreclose his other employment opportunities; the statements are made public; the employee claims the statements are false; and the public dissemination has been voluntary. Ludwig , 123 F.3d at 410.
The Court stated that "[i]f the above requirements are met, the employee is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard through a name-clearing hearing, when plaintiff has made a request for such a hearing." Id . (citations omitted).
Defendants argue that Plaintiff never requested a name-clearing hearing. In his Complaint, Plaintiff merely alleges that "Plaintiff communicated to Defendant Shirey on April 28, 1998 that he was innocent of any of these allegations and requested that the City defer any action on the resolution to fire Plaintiff pending conclusion of these audits and grand jury investigations." Doc. 1. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failure to request a name-clearing hearing requires dismissal of his § 1983 claim.
In Ludwig , it was determined that "the plaintiffs claim for deprivation of a liberty interest was properly dismissed" in that the plaintiffs "letter accusing the defendants of denying plaintiff due process of law . . . was insufficient to constitute a request for a name-clearing hearing." Ludwig , 123 F.3d at 411. In Brown v. City of Niota , 2000 WL 690226(6th Cir. 2000), the plaintiffs alleged a § 1983 claim of deprivation of a liberty interest and the defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court found that:
[b]ecause the city did not receive notice of the plaintiffs' desire for a name-clearing hearing prior to the initiation of this law suit we believe that the district court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. At the time this complaint was filed, the plaintiffs had not suffered a deprivation of their liberty interest without due process of law because they had not been denied a name-clearing hearing by the city.Brown v. City of Niota , 2000 WL 690226(6th Cir. 2000).
As in the Brown and Ludwig cases , Plaintiff Quinn has not requested a name-clearing hearing and has not alleged that he requested a name-clearing hearing, therefore Plaintiffs claim for deprivation of a liberty interest is properly dismissed. At the time this complaint was filed, Plaintiff had not suffered a deprivation of his liberty interest without due process of law because he had not been denied a name-clearing hearing.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 5) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED and TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.