Ellison v. Balinski
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23409
6th Cir.2010Background
- Ellison owned MyaBrooke Properties and sold Grandville property to Asia Thomas; the Wayne County deeds show a $90,000 sale and a nominal $1 transfer prior to that; Balinski investigated fraud tied to these transactions and sought to locate closing documents from Ellison, who refused to cooperate; the warrant sought broad authority to search Ellison's residence and seize documents and devices relating to MyaBrooke, Asia Thomas, and St. Louis property; the warrant described “any and all” computers, software, and documents; the warrant was signed by a prosecutor and a district court judge; police seized a large bin, a desktop, and a laptop after entering Ellison’s home; Ellison pursued §1983 Fourth Amendment claims and libel/slander under state law; a jury awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages for the Fourth Amendment claim and awarded Balinski the defense against the state-law claim; the district court denied Balinski’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and remittitur and awarded Ellison attorney’s fees, which Balinski appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause and nexus for the warrant | Ellison argues the affidavit lacked probable cause and failed to tie the residence to a crime. | Balinski contends probable cause existed and the nexus was established. | Probable cause and nexus were lacking; district court correctly denied JMOL on this basis. |
| Qualified immunity | Ellison contends Balinski violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. | Balinski argues qualified immunity applies unless rights were clearly established. | Qualified immunity did not apply; jury could find a Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Remittitur of the damages award | Ellison asserts the $100,000 compensatory award is appropriate for the harm. | Balinski argues the award is against the weight of the evidence and excessive. | No remittitur; damages were within the range allowed for dignitary harms under §1983. |
| Attorney’s fees award | Ellison requests fees based on the approved lodestar. | Balinski challenges specific entries and proportionality of fees. | District court did not abuse discretion; fees sustained at the lodestar amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause requires a fair probability of finding evidence)
- United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2004) (necessity of nexus between place and items to be seized)
- United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (evaluation of probable cause within affidavit confines)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (lack of indicia of probable cause defeats immunity)
- Mills v. City of Barbourville, 389 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2004) (qualified immunity not available where warrant is unreasonable)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step inquiry for qualified immunity)
- Stachura v. Memphis City Sch. Dist., 477 U.S. 299 (1986) (damages for constitutional injuries include noneconomic harms)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method for attorney’s fees)
- Brandon v. Allen, 719 F.2d 151 (6th Cir. 1983) (recognition of dignitary harms under §1983)