Carpenter v. King
792 F. Supp. 2d 29
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff James H. Carpenter, Jr., a prisoner, sues Colbert I. King and The Washington Post for defamation over three columns about Keith Barnes's death in a federal prison.
- The May 21, 2005 column 'A Witness Pays the Price in Prison' is referenced; it reportedly does not mention Carpenter and Barnes's case, and is not alleged to defame Carpenter.
- The May 28, 2005 column 'Death Sentence, D.C. Style' includes details about Barnes, sources, and mentions Carpenter as having purportedly threatened Barnes; it is alleged to be defamatory toward Carpenter.
- The May 23, 2009 column 'Our Prison System vs. the Terrorists' discusses prison conditions and mentions that Carpenter allegedly sent notes threatening Barnes; the piece relies on prosecutors and other sources.
- Plaintiff seeks $4 million in compensatory/punitive damages from King and $2 million in punitive damages from each John Doe.
- The court grants the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a defamation claim, finding the complaint fails to allege defamatory falsehood with fault and that some statements are substantially true or privileged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carpenter states a defamation claim. | Carpenter alleges King defamed him in the May 23/28, 2009 columns. | The statements are opinion or substantially true and/or not about Carpenter. | No; complaint fails to plead false, actionable statements or fault. |
| Whether statements were false or capable of being proven true or false. | King named Carpenter as the killer in threats. | Articles rely on sources; gist/substantial truth defeats falsity; some statements are opinion. | Gist/substantial truth; no actionable falsity shown. |
| Whether King acted with fault to support defamation claim. | King negligently relied on sources and asserted false court papers. | King relied on credible sources; no negligent publication shown. | Insufficient fault; no negligent conduct pleaded. |
| Whether statements in official court reporting are privileged from defamation claims. | Articles influence judicial proceedings; pain on reputation. | News reports on official proceedings are privileged. | Privilege applies; no actionable defamation from those reports. |
| Whether the statements portraying Carpenter as dangerous are actionable. | Articles portray him as more dangerous than terrorists. | Even if stated as opinion, not necessarily actionable; could be facts if provable. | Conclusions about danger are not actionable statements of fact; fail to state claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standards; plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility standard)
- Guilford Transp. Indus., Inc. v. Wilner, 760 A.2d 580 (D.C. 2000) (speech protection for editorial/op-ed; defamation limits)
- Moldea v. New York Times Co., 1, L. Ed. 22 F.3d 310 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (defamation: test of factual basis vs. opinion)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (fault requirement; private individuals; actual malice standard)
- Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005) (privilege for reporting on official proceedings)
- Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 424 A.2d 78 (D.C. 1980) (privilege and defamation; reporting of court matters)
- Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (defamation elements; falsity and publication)