Schaefer v. Newton
Citation | 57 F.3d 1073 |
Decision Date | 07 June 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 94-2821,94-2821 |
Parties | 23 Media L. Rep. 2051 NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit. Gerard SCHAEFER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Michael NEWTON and Avon Books, Defendants/Appellees. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and PELL and ESCHBACH, Circuit Judges.
Gerard Schaefer, a Florida inmate convicted of two murders, brought this action for defamation against an author, Michael Newton, and his publisher, Avon Books (Avon). Jurisdiction arises from the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a)(1). 1 The district court granted summary judgment for Newton and Avon Books. Schaefer appeals. We affirm.
In 1973, Schaefer was arrested for aggravated assault after two women who he had abducted and tied to a tree in a remote section of Florida escaped and contacted the police. Near the site where the women were held, police found a grave containing two bodies, later identified as Susan Carole Place and Georgia Jessup. Schaefer was convicted of murdering both women and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Police investigators found evidence in Schaefer's mother's home that made Schaefer a suspect in other murders. The evidence included jewelry, women's clothing, human teeth, a passport, and manuscripts which detailed ritualistic murders. (App. at 53). The police investigation resulted in several newspaper and magazine articles written about Schaefer, concerning police suspicion of Schaefer in other murders. For example:
Jayne Ellison, 6 Dead; 28 May Be: A Trail of Butchered Girls, Palm Beach Post-Times, May 13, 1973, at 1 ( ). (App. at 61).
Two Murders Linked to 26 Lost, Slain, Miami News, May 14, 1973, at 14A ( ). (App. at 64).
Crime: Bluebeard on the Beach, Time, May 28, 1973, at 31 ( ). (App. at 71).
Pat Plarski, Killer's Book: Fiction or 'How-To'?, Palm Beach Post, Aug. 14, 1989, at 1 ( ). (App. at 79-79).
Michael Newton is an author who wrote Hunting Humans: The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, (Hunting Humans), which was published by Avon. In this book, there is an entry labelled: "Schaefer, Gerard John." The entry reads as follows:
A homicidal ex-policeman from Oakland Park, Florida, dubbed the "Sex Beast" by local newsmen, Schaefer was theoretically linked with the murders of at least 20 persons after the jewelry, teeth, and clothing of several victims were recovered from a trunk in the attic of his mother's home. The public defender's office was unable to prevent Schaefer's conviction and imprisonment on first-degree murder charges, the killer took it in stride. When Schaefer's wife divorced him and became engaged to his defense attorney, he gave the couple his blessing, requesting that the same lawyer continue to handle his case through forthcoming appeals.
Hunting Humans, 298 (R. 3 at 7). Schaefer objected to this entry and brought suit for damages and injunctive relief, claiming "plaintiff has never been linked to 20 murders; plaintiff is not a serial killer; plaintiff should not be listed in an encyclopedia of modern serial killers published by the defendants." (R. 3 at 2).
Newton and Avon moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Schaefer now appeals.
The parties made cross-motions for summary judgment. Schaefer supported his motion with various documents, which Newton and Avon moved to strike. The district court granted the motion and struck Schaefer's evidence as unauthenticated. See Gustovich v. A.T. & T. Communications, Inc., 972 F.2d 845, 849 (7th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (). The district court's decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 923 (7th Cir.1994).
Schaefer concedes that his evidence is unauthenticated, but argues that he should be held to a lower standard because he is an inmate proceeding pro se. Although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, there is no lower standard when it comes to rules of evidence and procedure. Jones v. Phipps, 39 F.3d 158, 163 (7th Cir.1994); Friedel v. City of Madison, 832 F.2d 965, 970 (7th Cir.1987) (). Additionally, Newton and Avon complied with Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir.1982), and gave notice to Schaefer describing their motion for summary judgment, the proper manner for Schaefer to respond to the motion, and the effect of his failure to respond. (R. 39 at 1-3). Schaefer was aware of the procedures regarding motions for summary judgment and he failed to comply with them. The district court was correct in striking his evidence from the record.
We now turn to the merits of the summary judgment granted to Newton and Avon on Schaefer's claim of defamation. A federal court sitting in diversity must first apply the forum state's choice of law rules to determine which state's substantive law governs the dispute. Healy Co. v. Milwaukee Met. Sewerage Dist., 50 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir.1995) (citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941)). In Schaefer's case, the district court, sitting in the southern district of Indiana, determined that the two possible sources of substantive law are Indiana and Florida. Because it determined the defamation law of Indiana and Florida to be the same, the district court applied the law of the forum state, Indiana, and the parties do not dispute this finding. See Jean v. Dugan, 20 F.3d 255, 260 (7th Cir.1995) (). "Absent some compelling reason of policy, this court will not disturb the district judge's choice of law where neither party objected to that choice in the district court." Vachet v. Central Newspapers, Inc., 816 F.2d 313, 316 n. 3 (7th Cir.1987) (citing International Adm'rs v. Life Ins. Co., 753 F.2d 1373, 1376 (7th Cir.1985)). Accordingly, we apply the substantive law of Indiana to the defamation dispute.
The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Hurst-Roesche Engineers, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., No. 94-1605, slip op. at 9 (7th Cir. April 5, 1995).
"To maintain an action for defamation, a plaintiff must show a communication with four elements: 1) defamatory imputation; 2) malice; 3) publication; and 4) damages." Schrader v. Eli Lilly & Co., 639 N.E.2d 258, 261 (Ind.1994). Defamatory communications are those which tend to harm a person's reputation by lowering the person in the community's estimation or deterring third persons from dealing or associating with the person. Rambo v. Cohen, 587 N.E.2d 140, 145 (Ind.App.1992). A communication is defamatory per se if it imputes, among other things, criminal or sexual...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. University of Notre Dame
...must show a communication with defamatory imputation, malice, publication4, and damages. Schaefer v. Newton, 57 F.3d 1073, No. 94-2821, 1995 WL 349977 at *3 (7th Cir.(Ind.), June 8 1995); Street, 660 N.E.2d at 1058; Schrader, 639 N.E.2d 258. However, while a communication may be defamatory ......