UDOH v. MCEVOY

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 1/8/14. 1/9/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION

PASTOR STEPHEN UKO UDOH

v.
COLIN MCEVOY
THE EXPRESS TIMES

NO. 13-7605

MEMORANDUM
JONES, J.

JANUARY ;) , 2014

Plaintiff Pastor Stephen Uko lJdoh brings this action against Colin Mc Evoy and the
I~xpr,;:ss

Times ba::;cd on his allegations that the defendants published an allegedly defamatory

article about him. Ile seeks to proceed in.forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court
,..,ill grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dis1niss his complaint tOr failure to
state a claim.

I.

FACTS

J>laintiff alleges that he was unlawfully arrested OB a third degree harassmerit charge. On
June: 3, 2011, the defer1dants published an article in the Express 1'imes of Easton about plaintitI
(presumably rela·:ed to the arrest), which included his picture, and which was alsc1 available

online. As a result, plaintiff claims that he was ·'psychologically traumatized," a11d that his
''go1Jd na1ne was ruined." (Compl. ~I IV.) He seeks $5 billion dollars in damage~..

JI.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

1'hc Court grants plai11tiff leave to proceed in for1na 11auperis. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2){B)(ii) applies, which requires the Court to dismiss the con1plaint if it fails to state a
claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under§ 1915(e)(2)(!3)(ii) is governed by the

san1e standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
1

see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
deterrninc whether the cornplaint contains "sufficient factual matter, accepted as tn1e, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroji v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quotations omitte<i). If an affirmative defense is obvious from the face of the con1p\aint, the
Court may dismiss any facially invalid claims under § l 915. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F .3d

1252, 1258 (10th c:ir. 2006). As plaintiff is proceeding prose, the Court must construe his
allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 33:;, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).

Ill.

DISCUSSION

The Court understands plaintiff to be bringing civi:_ rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C-. §
1983, based on damage to his reputation, as well as defamatio11 claims. Plaintiff's civil right_<.;
clairr1s fail because nothing in the complaint suggests 1hat the defendants are state actors. Set!
Groman v. Twp. cf Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995) ("[A] suit under§ 1983 requires
the

v~rongdoers

to have violated federal rights of the plaintiff, and that they did so while acting

unde.r color of state law."). In any event, defamation is not actionable under § 1983 unless a
plairltiff can ··show a stigma to his reputation pll1S deprivation of some additional right or
interest." Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2008) (quotations
omi1ted). Plaintiil''s allegations of psychological dislrcss and damage to his reputation do not
meet that standard. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 2:!6, 234 (1991) ("[Slo long as [the alleged]
damage flows from injury caused by the defendant to a plaintiff's reputation, it may be
recoverable under state tort law but it is not recoverable in a [civil rights] actio11."); Good v. Ci'ty·
ofSunbury, 352 F. App'x 688, 692 (3d Cir. 2009) (allegations of emotional distress do not
sati~fy

the stigma-plus test).

2

·ro the exte11t plaintiff is bringing defamation cb;Lims under state law, those c:laims arc
tirne-barred. In Penrisylvania, the statute of limitations goven1ing defan1ation clairrts is one year.

,5ee 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.§ 5523. Under Pennsylvania's "single publication rule," \Vhich applies to
publications in nev.rspapers as well as on the internet, tl·te statute of limitations begins to run upon
the original printing of the defamatory material. Jn re 1'.Jhila. Newspapers, LLC, 690 F .3d 161,
174 (3d Cir. 2012). Herc, plaintiff alleges that the defamatory statements were n1ade on June 3,
2011. but he did n•Jt file this action until December 26, 2013, well beyond the expiration of the
one-year limitatio11s period. Accordingly, his defamation claims are time barred.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing re.:i.sons, plaintiffs complaint will be dismissed. As it does 11ot appear that
plaintiff can cure the deficiencies in his complaint, he will not be given leave to arnend. See

(Jra) son v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (Jd Cir. 2002).
1

follows.

3

An appropriate order