Maxwell Ex Rel. T.D. v. Dodd
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24104
6th Cir.2011Background
- Two Secret Service agents arrested a suspect at Maxwell's home without a warrant, while others conducted a protective search.
- Maxwell, who was pregnant, and her sister were present; seized items included a shotgun, ammunition, and cash per Maxwell.
- Maxwell alleges Fourth Amendment violations including unlawful entry, unlawful search, wrongful seizure, and mistreatment; she sues Dodd and Knight.
- District court dismissed the civil-conspiracy claim against some agents; at trial, jury found for Maxwell on some claims and for agents on others.
- Gunnarson was granted judgment as a matter of law on unlawful-entry; jury found no unlawful entry by others, and Maxwell received modest compensatory and punitive damages.
- Maxwell appeals asserting sufficiency of the unlawful-entry verdict, conspiracy claim, and jury instructions regarding a protective sweep.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful-entry liability for Gunnarson | Maxwell contends Gunnarson unlawfully entered the home. | Gunnarson did not participate in the protective sweep and thus cannot be liable. | Gunnarson appropriately JMOL; entry did not distinguish him from others. |
| Civil-conspiracy under § 1985(3) | Two officers conspired based on race-based animus and actions during search. | No agreement or race-based motive; actions were part of arrest team, not a conspiracy. | Judgment affirmed; no evidence of agreement or race-based conspiracy. |
| Circumstantial evidence of conspiracy | Circumstantial facts show a race-based conspiracy. | Circumstances show only two officers acting together, not a conspiratorial agreement. | Insufficient to prove § 1985(3) conspiracy. |
| Jury instructions on protective sweep | Instruction omitted phrases requiring a cursory sweep and brief duration. | No error; instruction properly conveyed cursory nature and limited duration. | No plain or actual error; instruction upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes mandatory vs. jurisdictional claim-processing rules)
- Young v. Langley, 793 F.2d 792 (6th Cir. 1986) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts via JMOL/new trial)
- Pruidze v. Holder, 632 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2011) (defines mandatory vs. jurisdictional distinction)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (statutory jurisdictional questions depend on congressional language)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (limits on jurisdictional triggers to statutory text)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (protective sweeps must be cursory and limited in scope)