Hinkle v. White

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants defamed plaintiff by spreading rumors that he was arsonist and child molester that precluded him from obtaining future employment in law enforcement management position. Plaintiff failed to establish that he had protected liberty interest in future job in law enforcement management since liberty interest protected by due process clause concerns pursuit of general occupation and not right to specific job. Moreover, mere defamation by govt., by itself, does not deprive person of occupational liberty, even when it causes serious impairment of future employment, where, as here, plaintiff failed to make required showing that govt. changed his legal status.