Kensu v. Buskirk
2:13-cv-10279
E.D. Mich.Nov 1, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Temujin Kensu, a prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; trial in March 2016 resulted in a jury verdict for Kensu for $325,002 against five defendants.
- Oliver Law Group initially represented Kensu, withdrew in Oct. 2013; Kensu proceeded pro se, then retained Solomon Radner in April 2015.
- Post-judgment Kensu filed four motions: (1) attorney fees; (2) equitable relief (injunctive/declaratory and medical relief); (3) motion to compel phone recordings; and (4) motion for an indicative ruling. Defendants appealed after the fee motion was filed.
- Court applied the PLRA (§ 1997e) four-step framework for fee awards, treated Oliver Law’s claim under quantum meruit, and performed a lodestar analysis for Radner and Oliver Law.
- The Court awarded partial attorney fees to Kensu (total awarded $51,172.37 after applying 1% of judgment toward fees), allocated portions to Radner and Oliver Law (Oliver Law received $14,407.27), awarded costs $2,213.44, and apportioned fee liability among liable defendants.
- The Court denied Kensu’s motions to compel phone call recordings and for equitable relief (and denied his indicative ruling), finding lack of need for recordings, mootness/waiver of equitable relief, and that the notice of appeal divested jurisdiction to grant the requested equitable relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kensu (and Oliver Law) are entitled to attorney fees under § 1988 and PLRA § 1997e(d) | Kensu sought prevailing-party fees; Oliver Law sought recovery for pre-withdrawal work via lien or hourly/quantum meruit | Defendants challenged scope under PLRA and proportionality (and generally opposed non-attorney fees) | Granted in part: lodestar awarded with PLRA caps and proportionality adjustments; Oliver Law recovered via quantum meruit haircuted for deficiencies and clerical entries |
| Whether non-attorney/paralegal hours are recoverable | Kensu sought $110/hr for non-attorney staff charged to the case | Defendants objected to non-attorney recoveries and some entries as clerical | Allowed recoverable non-attorney hours that reflect substantive legal work; disallowed purely clerical time and reduced certain mixed entries |
| Proper hourly rates under PLRA cap (§1997e(d)(3)) | Plaintiff requested $217.50/hr for attorneys and $110/hr for non-attorneys | Defendants objected to rates exceeding PLRA cap | Court applied PLRA maximum (150% of CJA rate): $193.50/hr for attorneys; $110/hr for non-attorneys approved |
| Whether court should compel production of phone call recordings | Kensu said recordings needed to verify recoverable call costs and resolve Oliver Law lien dispute | Defendants produced call logs/costs but withheld recordings per MDOC policy and Michigan law; argued recordings not warranted | Denied: recordings not necessary to establish recoverable costs; lien dispute moot given fee award approach; no basis to override MDOC policy/law |
| Whether court may grant equitable/medical injunctive relief post-judgment | Kensu sought declaratory relief, transfer restraint, and medical orders; argued court previously said it would consider equitable relief | Defendants argued appeal divested district court of jurisdiction; transfer mooted request | Denied: appeal divested jurisdiction; in any event Kensu waived by failing to raise at closing, relief duplicative or moot (plaintiff transferred), and court unsuitable to micromanage medical treatment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee applicant must substantiate hours and rates)
- Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531 (lodestar method as starting point for reasonable fee)
- Hadix v. Johnson, 398 F.3d 863 (PLRA fee cap implementation tied to Judicial Conference/CJA rates)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (nominal damages often preclude attorney fees)
- Cramblit v. Fikse, 33 F.3d 633 (distinguishing nominal-damage outcomes in fee awards)
- Idalski v. Crouse Cartage Co., 229 F. Supp. 2d 730 (quantum meruit entitlement for withdrawn/terminated contingent-fee counsel)
- Polen v. Melonakos, 222 Mich. App. 20 (state-law principles re: quantum meruit for attorneys)
- Island Lake Arbors Condo. Ass’n v. Meisner & Assoc., PC, 301 Mich. App. 384 (quantum meruit and consideration of contractual terms)
- Siggers-El v. Barlow, 433 F. Supp. 2d 811 (applying PLRA four-step approach and assessments on applying judgment portion to fees)
- Morrison v. Davis, 88 F. Supp. 2d 799 (examples where courts assessed nominal portion of judgment toward fees despite punitive damages)