Green v. St. Lawerence et al

Filing 6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing re 1 Complaint filed by Antha Green. Objections to R&R due by 9/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/11/2013. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
ANTHA GREEN,

)
)

Plaintiff,
)

Case No. CV413-068

V.

AL ST. LAWRENCE,
COLONEL ENOCH, MAJOR
WELSH, CAPTAIN
MIDDLETON, JANE DOE 1, and
JANE DOE 2,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Antha Green, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP"), has
flied a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various
officials of the Chatham County Sheriff's Department. His complaint
consists of a rambling and largely incoherent narrative asserting that
two female staff members treated him with "rudeness" and used an
"aggressive tone of voice" during his visit to the sheriff's department on
August 21, 2011. Doe. 1 at 6. That visit was apparently prompted by his
duty to register as a sex offender following the completion of his prison

sentence for aggravated child molestation, stalking, public indecency,
and peeping. See Georgia Department of Corrections Offender Search,

available at

http ://www. dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/OffenderQuery/jsp/

OffQryForm.jsp (last visited September 11, 2013). Green further states
that the female staff members refused to assist him in completing a
"questionnaire" and changed his "assessment risk level" without proper
authority. Id. at 7. He sues defendants' for defamation of character,
slander, perjury, and mistreatment. Id. at 5.
Green has failed to state a colorable claim for relief under § 1983.
General allegations of rudeness or incivility do not even constitute an
actionable tort under state law, much less a violation of a constitutional
right. The law affords no remedy for "mere insults, indignities, threats,
annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities. The rough edges of
our society are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the
meantime plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be
hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts
that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is no occasion for
1

While Green lists Sheriff Al St. Lawrence, Colonel Enoch, Major Welsh, and
Captain Middleton as defendants, he never refers to them in the body of his
complaint. The only proper defendants, therefore, are the two "Jane Doe" female
staff members.

2

the law to intervene in every case where someone's feelings are hurt."
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment d. Indeed, if recovery were
permissible on hurt feelings alone, "we should all be in court twice a
week." William L. Prosser, Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering; A

New Tort, 37 Mich. L. Rev. 874, 887 (1939). While Georgia, like most
jurisdictions, permits recovery for the intentional infliction of emotional
distress, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53 (1988),
"[iliability has been found only where the conduct has been so
outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all
possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community." Bowers v. Estep, 420 S.E.2d 336,
339 (1992) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment d);

Garcia v. Shaw Industries, Inc., 741 S.E.2d 285, 289 (2013) ("Whether a
claim rises to the requisite level of outrageousness and egregiousness to
sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is a
question of law."). Green alleges no more than hurt feelings resulting
from the type of rudeness and incivility we all encounter in day-to-day
life. Moreover, even if he has stated a claim under state law, it is well
settled that "[h]urt feelings or a bruised ego are not themselves the stuff

3

of a constitutional tort." Zherka v. Amicone, 634 F.3d 642, 645-46 (2nd
Cir. 2011).
Green further claims that the defendants defamed him by
improperly elevating his risk assessment level. But even assuming that
Green has stated a claim for defamation under state tort law, he has
plainly failed to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for the
Constitution affords him no remedy for mere defamation of character.
"Defamation, by itself, is a tort actionable under the law of most States,
but not a constitutional deprivation." Siegert v. Gilley, 560 U.S. 226, 223
(1991); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (injury to reputation alone
does not deprive the defamed party of any "liberty" or "property"
protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment);

Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572 (11th Cir. 1990) (sheriff's defamatory
comments following plaintiff's arrest did not deprive plaintiff of any
constitutionally protected interest).
This Court is authorized to dismiss prior to service an IFP suit that
fails to state a claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). Green's claims of mere "rudeness" and "defamation" do

not constitute constitutional torts actionable under § 1983. His
complaint, therefore, should be DISMISSED.

SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this

/1

day of

September, 2013.
UNITEI WIXTES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

5