Morgan v. Tomlinson et al

Filing 71

ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White granting defendant Durant Daily Democrat Newspaper Co.'s motion to dismiss ( 59 Motion to Dismiss ) (lal, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVID LAMONT MORGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-CIV-379-RAW

JERRY L. TOMLINSON, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Durant Daily Democrat
Newspaper Co. (“Newspaper”) [Docket No. 59].1 This case was filed on September 7, 2012
alleging violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights. The case was transferred to this court on
April 18, 2013.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. The court construes liberally the
pleadings of all pro se litigants. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10 th Cir. 1991).
However, the court cannot act as a pro se litigant’s counsel. See, Garrett v. Selby Connor
Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

(“... the court cannot take on the

responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching
the record.”) Id, 840.

1

Durant Daily Democrat Newspaper Co. is owned and operated by Heartland Publications,

L.L.C.
1

Statute of Limitations
Newspaper asserts that this matter is time-barred as a matter of law. Plaintiff fails to
address this issue in his response [Docket No. 65].
Newspaper published an article regarding Plaintiff on September 2, 2011. Any
lawsuit for defamation must be brought within one year after the cause of action accrued.
See Oklahoma Statutes, Title 12, Section 95 (an action must be brought within one year for
“an action for libel, slander, ....”). Plaintiff filed this case on September 7, 2012. Generally,
a libel action accrues for statute of limitations purposes on the date of publication. Digital
Design v. Information Builders, 24 P.3d 834, 839 (Okla. 2001). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim
against Newspaper is barred by the statute of limitations.
Defamation
Plaintiff must allege the following regarding a claim for defamation: (1) defendant
made a false and defamatory statement concerning plaintiff; (2) defendant made an
unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the
part of the publisher, and (4) that plaintiff suffered actual harm to his reputation as a result
of the false statement in the article. Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723, 728 (10 th Cir. 2010).
The court has reviewed the newspaper article in question. It clearly states throughout
the article that Newspaper was quoting the affidavit by a Durant Police department member.
Plaintiff’s argument against Newspaper is that they published the article “before I was proven
guilty.” Plaintiff’s claim against Newspaper fails as a matter of law.

2

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Durant Daily
Democrat Newspaper Co. [Docket No. 59] is GRANTED.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2013.

Dated this 2nd day of May, 2013.

J4h4i0

3