Valance v. Flauding

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by NFN NMI Valance; DISMISSING case pursuant to 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) without prejudice to Pla's right to refile claim in state court. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 12/2/2009. (lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION NFN NMI VALANCE, Plaintiff, v. GARY A. FLAUDING, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NO. 1:09 CV 328 JM

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Valance filed a pro se complaint for libel, slander, and defamation, alleging that on August 28, 2009, defendant Gary Flauding "maliciously transmitted and published an e-mail message" containing an untrue, false, and defamatory message to the St. Joseph Township Trustee's office. (DE 1 at 1). The plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff and defendant are citizens of Indiana and are private parties. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, indigent litigants may proceed without prepayment of fees, which prevents poverty from becoming an impediment to the adjudication of legitimate claims in the federal courts. To prevent abusive, captious or meritless litigation, however, federal courts are authorized to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if the action or appeal is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary damages from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).

Valance alleges he was the victim of a vicious, untrue, false, and defamatory message sent by a private citizen to the township trustee's office. The complaint does not allege a basis for jurisdiction in this court, and this court has no basis for jurisdiction over this claim. Defamation is not a federal cause of action and absent diversity of citizenship, which is not present here, Valance may not bring a defamation claim in this court. Defamation is a state tort action, actionable in state court. Even if this complaint presented a claim that a person acting under color of state law defamed Valance, it would not be actionable in this court. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976) (holding that "the interest in reputation asserted in this case is neither `liberty' nor `property' guaranteed against state deprivation without due process of law."). For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE #2) and DISMISSES this cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to refile his claim in state court. SO ORDERED. Date: December 2, 2009 s/James T. Moody JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT