Andrew Kane v. Brian Lewis
675 F. App'x 254
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Andrew Kane sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after police executed a search warrant and his son was fatally shot; jury found no excessive force but found a knock-and-announce violation.
- On appeal the Fourth Circuit vacated the jury’s compensatory award because Kane failed to establish proximate cause and he had voluntarily dismissed his emotional-distress claim; court directed entry of nominal damages.
- District court entered judgment awarding Kane $1.00 in nominal damages and Kane moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
- District court initially denied fees, then after reconsideration awarded $25,000, explaining the award cursorily (to “preserve the rule of law” and to deter future misconduct).
- Both sides appealed: defendants argued no fees were warranted; Kane cross-appealed seeking a larger fee award.
- Fourth Circuit reviewed the fee award and concluded the district court failed to apply the governing Farrar/Mercer factors and, after reviewing the record, found no basis for any fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff who recovers only nominal damages can be awarded attorney’s fees under § 1988 | Kane argued nominal victory on knock-and-announce entitles him to fees; fee needed to vindicate rights and deter violations | Defendants argued Farrar/Mercer foreclose fees where recovery is only nominal absent unusual circumstances | A nominal-damages plaintiff can be a prevailing party, but usually no fees are warranted; the court applied Farrar/Mercer and found no basis for fees |
| Whether this case is an "unusual" nominal-damages case justifying fees (degree of success factor) | Kane stressed jury found constitutional violation against all defendants and sought only compensatory damages | Defendants emphasized Kane’s limited success: compensatory award vacated and emotional-distress claim dismissed pretrial | Court held Kane’s limited recovery (nominal damages) and dismissal of emotional-distress claim weigh against fees |
| Whether the legal significance of the victory justifies fees (legal-importance factor) | Kane argued knock-and-announce is important and fees promote enforcement | Defendants argued the verdict was fact-specific and did not establish novel legal principles | Court held the verdict had no broader legal significance and did not alter Fourth Amendment jurisprudence |
| Whether the litigation served a public purpose (public-purpose factor) | Kane argued holding police accountable serves public interest and deters misconduct | Defendants argued no demonstrable change in police practices or broader public benefit; verdict was opaque and offered little deterrent value | Court held the litigation did not show appreciable public benefit or deterrent effect; this factor weighed against fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (Sup. Ct.) (nominal damages often do not justify attorney’s fees under § 1988)
- Mercer v. Duke Univ., 401 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2005) (adopts Farrar concurrence factors for nominal-damages fee analysis)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (Sup. Ct.) (discusses knock-and-announce interest and recognizes § 1988 fee availability but does not mandate fees)
- Mid Atl. Med. Servs., LLC v. Sereboff, 407 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2005) (district court abuses discretion when failing to consider judicially recognized constraints)
- James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.) (factors constraining exercise of discretion)
- McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81 (4th Cir.) (affirming denial of fees where no basis for award)