Young v. New Haven Advocate

315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Connecticut contracted with the Commonwealth of Virginia to house Connecticut prisoners in Virginia's correctional facilities. Connecticut transferred about 500 prisoners, mostly African-American and Hispanic, to the Wallens Ridge State Prison, a 'supermax' facility in Big Stone Gap, Virginia. P is the warden at Wallens Ridge. This arrangement to incarcerate a sizeable number of its offenders in Virginia prisons provoked considerable public debate in Connecticut. D published a news article, written by one of its reporters, which discussed the allegedly harsh conditions at the Virginia prison and pointed out that the long trip to southwestern Virginia made visits by prisoners' families difficult or impossible. D mentioned a class action that inmates transferred from Connecticut had filed against P and the Connecticut Commissioner of Corrections. The inmates alleged a lack of proper hygiene and medical care and the denial of religious privileges at Wallens Ridge. D published a news article, written by one of its reporters, which discussed the allegedly harsh conditions at the Virginia prison and pointed out that the long trip to southwestern Virginia made visits by prisoners' families difficult or impossible. D mentioned a class action that inmates transferred from Connecticut had filed against P and the Connecticut Commissioner of Corrections. The inmates alleged a lack of proper hygiene and medical care and the denial of religious privileges at Wallens Ridge. P sued Ds for libel in a diversity action. P claimed that the newspapers' articles imply that he 'is a racist who advocates racism' and that he 'encourages abuse of inmates by the guards' at Wallens Ridge. P alleged that the newspapers circulated the allegedly defamatory articles throughout the world by posting them on their Internet websites. Ds filed motions to dismiss under 12(b)(2) on the ground that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. Ds are located and do business in Connecticut. When the articles in question were published, the Courant (D) had eight mail subscribers in Virginia. Neither newspaper solicits subscriptions from Virginia residents. No one from either newspaper, not even the reporters, traveled to Virginia to work on the articles about Connecticut's prisoner transfer policy. The two reporters made a few telephone calls into Virginia to gather some information for the articles. Both interviewed by telephone a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections. All other interviews were done with people located in Connecticut. The two reporters wrote their articles in Connecticut. Ds do not have any traditional contacts with the Commonwealth of Virginia. They do not live in Virginia, solicit any business there, or have any assets or business relationships there. The newspapers do not have offices or employees in Virginia, and they do not regularly solicit or do business in Virginia. Finally, Ds do not derive any substantial revenue from goods used or services rendered in Virginia. P pointed out that the newspapers posted the allegedly defamatory articles on Internet websites that were accessible to Virginia residents. The district court denied the newspaper Ds' motions to dismiss, concluding that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over them under Virginia's long-arm statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328(A)(3), because 'the defendants' Connecticut-based Internet activities constituted an act leading to an injury to the plaintiff in Virginia.' Ds filed an interlocutory appeal.