## Facts

- Jeff Henderson, a former felon who later became an award-winning chef, wrote an autobiographical book about his life, including his time in prison; the book was published by Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., through its William Morrow imprint.
- In the book, Henderson described a fellow inmate known as “Love Bug,” portraying him as a dominant figure in the prison yard who offered contraband (including “heat”) and who forced other inmates to submit to sexual acts as repayment for debts.
- Henry Lee Wallace alleged that he and Henderson were incarcerated together and that Wallace was known by the nickname “Love Bug.”
- Wallace claimed the “Love Bug” passage was “of and concerning” him and falsely depicted him as possessing and distributing weapons and coercing inmates into sexual conduct.
- Wallace sued Henderson and the publisher defendants for defamation in California state court based on the book passage.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity jurisdiction and filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.

## Issues

1. Whether Wallace’s defamation claim arose from defendants’ protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, based on the authorship and publication of an autobiographical book discussing prison life.
2. If the claim arose from protected activity, whether Wallace carried his burden to show a probability of prevailing on defamation by presenting admissible, prima facie evidence that the challenged passage was “of and concerning” Wallace, false, and otherwise actionable.

## Decision

- The court treated the writing and publication of Henderson’s memoir as protected activity for purposes of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 and proceeded to the statute’s second step.
- The court granted defendants’ special motion to strike because Wallace did not make the required evidentiary showing of a probability of success on his defamation claim.
- The court dismissed the complaint but granted Wallace leave to amend by the deadline set in the order.

## Legal Principles

- In a federal diversity case, California substantive law governs state-law defamation claims, and California’s anti-SLAPP statute may be applied by the federal court.
- California’s anti-SLAPP statute uses a two-step framework: (1) the defendant must show the challenged claim arises from protected activity; (2) if so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing with competent evidence.
- Authorship and publication of a book are forms of speech that can qualify as protected activity under § 425.16 when the claim targets the content of the publication.
- At the second step, a plaintiff cannot rely on conclusory allegations; the plaintiff must present admissible evidence making a prima facie showing on each element of defamation.
- A defamation plaintiff must show the statement is “of and concerning” the plaintiff—i.e., that reasonable readers who know the plaintiff would understand the statement to refer to the plaintiff.
- A court may grant an anti-SLAPP motion and still allow leave to amend when deficiencies might be cured by additional factual allegations and supporting evidence.

## Conclusion

In *Wallace v. Henderson*, the federal district court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike Wallace’s defamation complaint arising from a passage in Jeff Henderson’s memoir describing an inmate called “Love Bug,” because Wallace did not provide sufficient admissible evidence at the anti-SLAPP stage to show a probability of prevailing; the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.


Wallace v. Henderson, 2010 WL 1290911 (2010)