home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload Trio 2
/
Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO
/
dir33
/
cwru_ct.zip
/
90-96.S
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-11-06
|
4KB
|
73 lines
Subject: SIEGERT v. GILLEY, Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as
is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is
issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but
has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the
reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SIEGERT v. GILLEY
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of
columbia circuit
No. 90-96. Argued February 19, 1991 -- Decided May 23, 1991
In seeking to become "credentialed" in his new job at an Army hospital,
petitioner Siegert, a clinical psychologist, asked his former employer, a
federal hospital, to provide job performance and other information to his
new employer. Respondent Gilley, Siegert's supervisor at his former job,
responded with a letter declaring that he could not recommend Siegert
because he was inept, unethical, and untrustworthy. After he was denied
credentials and his federal service employment was terminated, Siegert
filed a damages action against Gilley in the District Court, alleging,
inter alia, that, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.
S. 388, Gilley had caused an infringement of his "liberty interests" in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment "by maliciously
and in bad faith publishing a defamatory per se statement . . . which [he]
knew to be untrue." Gilley filed a motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment, asserting, among other things, the defense of qualified immunity
under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, and contending that Siegert's
factual allegations did not state the violation of any constitutional right
"clearly established" at the time of the complained-of actions, see id., at
818. The court ultimately found Siegert's allegations to be sufficient,
but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions that the
case be dismissed. Although assuming that bad-faith motivation would
suffice to make Gilley's actions in writing the letter a violation of
Siegert's clearly established constitutional rights, the court held that
Siegert's particular allegations were insufficient under its "heightened
pleading standard" to overcome Gilley's qualified immunity claim.
Held: The Court of Appeals properly concluded that the District Court
should have dismissed Siegert's suit because he had not overcome Gilley's
qualified immunity defense. Siegert failed to allege the violation of a
clearly established constitutional right -- indeed, of any constitutional
right at all -- since, under Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 708-709, injury
to reputation by itself is not a protected "liberty" interest. He
therefore failed to satisfy the necessary threshold inquiry in the
determination of a qualified immunity claim. See, e. g., Harlow, supra, at
818. Thus, although the Court of Appeals reached the correct result, it
should not have assumed without deciding the necessary preliminary issue
and then proceeded to examine the sufficiency of Siegert's allegations.
Siegert's claim failed at an analytically earlier stage of the inquiry.
Pp. 5-8.
282 U. S. App. D. C. 392, 895 F. 2d 797, affirmed.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White,
O'Connor, Scalia, and Souter, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
which Blackmun, J., joined, and in Parts II and III of which Stevens, J.,
joined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------