&quot;Outrageous conduct&quot;?
<p>Is there a cause of action for &quot;Outrageous conduct&quot; that does not depend on the vulnerability to the emotional distress of an individual but might be properly applied to a public official (acting in official capacity) due to the effects on society as a whole?</p>
<p>I found <a href="https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/1600/1602/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">California jury instructions</a> regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress that defined outrageous conduct as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Outrageous conduct” is conduct so extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency. Conduct is outrageous if a reasonable person would regard the conduct as intolerable in a civilized community. Outrageous conduct does not include trivialities such as indignities, annoyances, hurt feelings, or bad manners that a reasonable person is expected to endure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If that definition fits the acts (or inaction) of a public official, might it be applicable under a different cause of action, e.g. mandamus under 28 U.S. Code § 1361? (See for example <a href="https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-united-states-capitol-police-121-cv-00401/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-united-states-capitol-police-121-cv-00401/</a>)   Could outrageous conduct overcome allowance for a discretionary duty?  (I think there was a hearing, in this case, today, but the results aren't public yet.)</p>
<p>Stretching my lack of knowledge of the legal process, could outrageous conduct be used in a class action?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is there a cause of action for &quot;Outrageous conduct&quot; that does not
depend on the vulnerability to the emotional distress of an individual
but might be properly applied to a public official (acting in official
capacity) due to the effects on society as a whole?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. There is no such cause of action.</p>
<p>A public official acting in the official's official capacity is immune from civil liability in tort for intentional acts that do not violate a clearly established constitutional right.</p>
<p>There are some narrow exceptions to this general rule. For example, certain employment discrimination lawsuits are allowed. Similarly, for example, embezzlement of private funds held in a fiduciary capacity by a public official in charge of conducting foreclosures would be actionable in many states. But there are no exceptions that are in any way a fit to the fact pattern described.</p>
<p>Furthermore, at least in federal courts, there can't be such a cause of action. An action that has an effect on society as a whole is, by definition, an act which no one has standing to sue regarding. Standing to sue, which is a subject matter jurisdictional requirement in federal court, requires a particularized injury to a legally protected interest of an individual that is distinct from the injury caused to the general public, or taxpayers generally, or citizens generally.</p>
<p>State law, in principle, can give standing to someone who does not have standing under this federal constitutional law standard in state court, but most states make only the most narrow exceptions to the principle. For example, some states give someone standing to sue for violation of state constitutional budget and tax rules that apply to legislation generally. Often standing exceptions and exceptions from the federal court case and controversy requirement (which is also a matter of subject matter jurisdiction in federal court) are waived at the same time.</p>

<p>Attempting to sue public officials for any kind of harm, psychological or otherwise is always problematical, not only because of statutory immunity, but because there is a presumption that the official is acting on behalf of the state and therefore acting &quot;beneficially&quot; (as crazy as it is to assume that the state is &quot;beneficial&quot;, that is nevertheless the presumption).</p>
<p>Therefore, any successful action against a public official generally takes one of three forms:</p>
<p>(1) The official is explicitly breaking a hard and fast law and there is concrete evidence that the official has broken the law.</p>
<p>(2) The official is not doing their express duty as defined by the statute that enables them, and their failure to do their duty is DELIBERATE, and their failure to do their duty is CONSEQUENTIAL, ie has serious negative consequences for actual people and is not trivial or meaningless.</p>
<p>(3) The official is acting in an arbitrary way, in other words helping (or persecuting) some people but not others, and is doing so either because of BIAS or because they have been BRIBED.</p>

united-states