A district court in Delaware this week handed down McGillvary v. Grande, a case with some interesting tort elements — and a heck of an underlying story. Judge Jennifer Hall ruled against Caleb McGillvary (aka “Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker”) in his defamation claim against Todd Grande. McGillvary brought the action despite currently serving a 57-year sentence in a New Jersey state prison for first-degree murder.

McGillvary achieved a curious level of fame in February 2013 after appearing on local news recounting how he saved a woman in Fresno, California. Homeless, McGillvary was picked up as a hitchhiker by Jett Simmons McBride, who not only allegedly told him that he was Jesus Christ but that he had raped a 14-year-old girl on a business trip. He then crashed his car and pinned a worker against a truck. After McGillvary jumped out to help the man, a woman stopped to also lend a hand. McGillvary said that McBride attacked the woman and, grabbing his hatchet from his backpack, struck McBride in the back of the head. His animated tale of how he went “Smash, smash, SUH-MASH!” went viral and “Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker” was born.

McGillvary was later arrested on murder charges on May 16, 2013 for the death of New Jersey attorney Joseph Galfy. McGillvary claimed that Galfy offered him a place to stay the night and proceeded to drug and rape him. The jury did not believe him. It did not help that he gave combative testimony at trial and repeatedly engaged in outbursts.

All that brings us to the torts case. McGillvary sued Grande for a YouTube video on his personal history and personality. He claimed the film was defamatory.

Judge Hall makes fast work of the claims after finding McGillvary to be a limited public figure. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court established the actual malice standard, requiring public officials to shoulder the higher burden of proving defamation. Under that standard, an official would have to show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. That standard was later extended to public figures.

I would not classify McGillvary as a limited-purpose public figure as opposed to a full public figure. He appears to have engaged in a variety of public interviews since he first came to public attention. However, after imposing the higher burden, Hall cut down each claim:

For one thing, most of the statements in the video are opinions and characterizations, not assertions of fact, and are therefore incapable of defamatory meaning under Delaware law. Second, even if some statements were capable of being defamatory, the facts alleged in the amended complaint do not plausibly suggest that they could have lowered Plaintiff in the estimation of the community or deterred third persons from associating or dealing with Plaintiff. See McGillvary v. Netflix, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2024) (holding that allegation that McGillvary engaged in public urination did not have a tendency to injure his reputation because “McGillvary already has a reputation for public urination given two other public urination incidents”). Finally, given Plaintiff’s status as a limited-purpose public figure—having given interviews to a news program and a late-night talk show—the complaint fails to state a defamation claim because it fails to plausibly plead facts suggesting actual malice.

Hall also dismissed his claim of the public disclosure of private facts, which has an exception for newsworthy stories:

Having reviewed the amended complaint and challenged video in their entirety, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for invasion of privacy. As the amended complaint acknowledges, Plaintiff gained widespread public recognition as “Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker,” and he was subsequently convicted for first-degree murder. In view of those events, Plaintiff’s history and characteristics were of legitimate public concern. What’s more, if Plaintiff’s mental health conditions or other sensitive personal information were discussed in open court proceedings in connection with his 2019 conviction, such information would not have been private in 2021 when Defendant uploaded the challenged video to YouTube.

The court also dismissed McGillvary’s emotional distress claim, RICO claim, and Lanham Act claim.

It appears that the loss will not come as much of a surprise for McGillvary. The court noted that McGillvary has been active in suing people writing about him:

“The Court’s conclusion is in accord with other courts to have considered similar claims brought by Plaintiff. See, e.g., McGillvary v. Hartley, No. 24-81, 2025 WL 2791081 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2025) (dismissing McGillvary’s complaint against a company and individuals that posted a video about McGillvary on the internet); McGillvary v. Scutari, No. 23-22605, 2024 WL 5202487 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2024) (dismissing McGillvary’s complaint against “81 named Individual Defendants and eleven unidentified John/Jane Doe or unnamed Defendants”); McGillvary v. Netflix, Inc., No. 23-1195, 2024 WL 3588043 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2024) (dismissing McGillvary’s complaint against Netflix, a local news station, a production company, a deputy sheriff, an events venue, and a talk show producer); McGillvary v. Vonkurnatowski, No. 22-8587, 2024 WL 6847412 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2024) (dismissing McGillvary’s complaint against an individual that posted a video about McGillvary on the internet).”

H/T: Eugene Volokh