Defendant Gabriel Whitley files a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the defamation claims brought against him by plaintiff Abdul Hakim Shabazz, asserting that Shabazz, as a public figure, has not met the burden of proving actual malice in his case. Whitley's statements are protected under the First Amendment, and Shabazz has failed to provide evidence that Whitley acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The motion concludes with a request for the court to rule in Whitley's favor and dismiss the claims with prejudice.

1. Defendant Gabriel Whitley, hereby moves this Court to grant a motion summary judgment in his
favor and dismiss the claims brought against him by Plaintiff Abdul Hakim Shabazz with
prejudice. In support of this motion, Defendant states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Abdul Hakim Shabazz, a well-known public figure who has run for public office, owns
and operates a tabloid called Indy Politics, hosts a public radio show on WIBC 93.7, and has
served on various nonprofit organizations related to local governments. Shabazz has brought a
defamation action against Gabriel Whitley, a member of the media, based on statements made
by Whitley.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In defamation cases
involving public figures, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, as
established by the precedent set in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Actual
malice requires that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless
disregard for the truth.
Filed: 6/7/2024 11:05 AM
Clerk
Marion County, Indiana

2. III. ARGUMENT
Abdul Hakim Shabazz is a Public Figure
As a candidate for public office, owner of a politically focused tabloid, and public radio host,
Shabazz is undeniably a public figure. This classification requires him to meet the higher burden
of proving actual malice in his defamation claim against Whitley.
No Evidence of Actual Malice
Shabazz has failed to present evidence that Whitley acted with actual malice. There is no
indication that Whitley knew the statements in question were false or acted with reckless
disregard for their truth. In fact, Shabazz has not provided any factual basis to support his claims
that Whitley's statements were made with the requisite level of malice.
First Amendment Protection
The First Amendment provides robust protection for speech, particularly when it pertains to
public figures and matters of public interest. In accordance with the precedent set by New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, Whitley's speech is protected unless Shabazz can demonstrate actual
malice, which he has not.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Gabriel Whitley a member of the media respectfully
requests that this Court grant summary judgment in his favor and dismiss the claims brought
against him by Plaintiff Abdul Hakim Shabazz with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
Gabriel Whitley
Date: 06/07/2024
---
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this [Insert Date], a copy of the foregoing Motion for Summary
Judgment was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s
electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access
this filing through the Court’s system.
-Gabriel Whitley