Billie Milstead v. Mark Begich

Good Law
363 F. App'x 471
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 25, 201009-35181California604 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and we do not repeat them here. Plaintiff Billie Jean Milstead (“Milstead”) appeals a district court order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Milstead brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants deprived her of due process by making defamatory statements that (1) damaged her reputation, (2) caused the owners of the Panhandle bar in Anchorage, Alaska, to terminate her employment, and (3) caused her peers in the hospitality industry to “ostracize” her. We affirm.

First, applying Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), we have held that “reputation, without more, is not a protected constitutional interest.” WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 367 , 374 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (citation omitted). Therefore, Milstead’s allegation that Defendants’ statements resulted in damage to her reputation in the Anchorage hospitality industry does not provide a federal cause of action, as her reputation alone is not a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest.

Second, we have noted that “where the actions of private individuals operate to deprive an individual of his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.