Peppers v. News Center 16 et al, No. 3:2018cv00871 - Document 6 (N.D. Ind. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 11/29/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

Download PDF
Peppers v. News Center 16 et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ROBIN D.K. PEPPERS, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO.: 3:18-CV-871-PPS-MGG NEWS CENTER 16, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Robin Dale Kilgore Peppers, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint. ECF 5. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. In the amended complaint, Peppers alleges that three news stations defamed him by referring to him as “a terrorist,” “extremely dangerous,” and “a mad man” based on his criminal charges of intimidation and information from the Mishawaka Police Department. Under Indiana law, for a claim of defamation, “a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a communication with defamatory imputation, (2) malice, (3) publication, and (4) damages.” Hamilton v. Prewett, 860 N.E.2d 1234, 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Dockets.Justia.com Notably, in a previous order, I found that similar allegations in the initial complaint did not state a claim because Peppers had not alleged facts to suggest that the news stations acted with actual malice. ECF 4. In response, Peppers now alleges that the news stations did not contact him directly to inquire about the facts underlying his criminal charge. However, under Indiana law, “the failure to investigate does not in itself establish malice” for purposes of defamation. Poyser v. Peerless, 775 N.E.2d 1101, 1108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002); see also Shine v. Loomis, 836 N.E.2d 952, 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Kitco, Inc. v. Corp. for Gen. Trade, 706 N.E.2d 581, 589 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Peppers also alleges that the news stations defamed him by reporting that Peppers did not appear in court because he was sick. He alleges that this statement was false because his absence in court was the result of a staph infection and a denial of medical treatment. However, based on these allegations, the news stations’ report was neither defamatory nor false -- absent truly unusual circumstances, a criminal defendant missing a court hearing due to sickness would not harm his or her reputation, and describing a staph infection as a sickness may be imprecise, but it is not false. In sum, the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For these reasons, the court DISMISSES this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the amended complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ENTERED: November 29, 2018 /s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.