Blair v. Wayne Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Gregory Harris

Decision Date27 January 2014
Docket NumberNo. 08–CV–15090.,08–CV–15090.
Citation993 F.Supp.2d 721
PartiesRosalind BLAIR, Personal Representative of the Estate of Marquis Blair, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Wayne County Deputy Sheriff Gregory HARRIS, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

James S. Craig, Fieger, Fieger, Kenney, Giroux, Danzig & Harrington PC, Thomas M. Lizza, Fieger, Fieger, Southfield, MI, for Plaintiff.

Joseph A. Humphrey, Jr., Detroit, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DETERMINATION OF DAMAGES

GERALD E. ROSEN, Chief Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This tragic case presents a model of how not to litigate a Section 1983 damages claim. On the one hand, we have an absolute tragedy—the death of a young man within just weeks of his older brother being shot and killed in a separate incident. Our hearts go out to the mother who has had to endure this double loss. On the other hand, we have a plaintiff's lawyer who failed to plead a state wrongful death claim, failed to aggressively pursue this case even after the Court pushed him to do so, and failed to put on any cognizable evidence that would support punitive damages when given the chance. The resultant lack of record evidence has tied the Court's hands in issuing this damages award.

II. PERTINENT FACTS

Plaintiff Rosalind Blair, in her capacity as personal representative of the estate of her deceased son, Marquis Blair, filed a two-count Section 1983 Complaint in this Court against Wayne County Deputy Sheriff Gregory Harris (Count I) and the County of Wayne (Count II) alleging that, on August 5, 2007, Defendant Harris, who was at the time off-duty, shot and killed her son, without justification, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. On September 23, 2010, 2010 WL 3805588, the Court granted the County's Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant Harris was acting under color of law when he shot Marquis Blair and further failed to establish that any official policy or practice of Wayne County was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation.

Wayne County is not representing or indemnifying individual Defendant Harris. Harris never answered or otherwise responded to Plaintiff's Complaint, and a Default Judgment of Liability was entered against him.1 The Court thereafter conducted a hearing to determine damages. The only witness to testify at the damages hearing was Rosalind Blair. At the conclusion of Ms. Blair's testimony, Plaintiff's counsel asked for a damage award of $1,000,000.

After hearing the testimony and the arguments of counsel, the Court took the matter under advisement. Thereafter, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the damages issue. Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff's testimony, counsel's arguments and the entire record of this matter, the Court now renders its decision on damages.

THE EVENTS OF AUGUST 5, 2007

According to the various police reports of the events of August 5, 2007—including witness statements and the Internal Affairs Department's Report of its interview with Defendant Harris—the events giving rise to this action are as follows.

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on Sunday, August 5, 2007, Gregory Harris,2 was dozing in the upstairs bedroom of his home on Flanders Street in Detroit when his stepdaughter, Rachel, yelled to him that there was someone inside his van (which was parked in front of the house) trying to steal it. Harris claims that, having discovered evidence of a prior attempt to break into his van two weeks earlier, he went downstairs so he could observe his vehicle through the front window.

Harris observed a black male, who was subsequently identified as Marquis Blair, the Plaintiff's decedent, inside his van behind the steering wheel. Harris ran back upstairs and retrieved his personal SIG Sauer 9mm handgun, loaded it and ran back downstairs. He exited the front door with his gun drawn and yelled to Blair, “Halt. Stop. Police. It's a police officer's van.” According to Harris, Blair looked toward him, extended his arm in his direction, with what Harris described as a long, shiny object in his hand pointed at him. Harris thought this object was a weapon and, therefore, feared for his safety. [ See Harris Statement to Internal Affairs Department, Wayne County Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. # 9–5, p. 1.] Harris reacted by firing four or five shots at Blair through the passenger window of the van.3

Blair did not return fire or otherwise respond to Harris's shots. Rather, he ducked under the steering wheel and exited the van through the open driver's side door. Harris approached the van, and as he moved toward the front end of the vehicle, Blair ran past him. According to Harris, as Blair ran by, he no longer saw the shiny object in his hand. He stated, however, that while Blair was running away, he turned toward him and Harris thought he reached into his waistband. Id. at p. 4. Harris perceived this movement as an additional threat to his safety and fired several shots again at Blair as he pursued him. Id. All told, Harris shot 16 rounds at Blair, five of which struck the decedent. [Internal Affairs Report, Dkt. # 9–5, p. 8.] Blair fell to the ground at the intersection of Hayes and Houston–Whittier.

Harris stated that when he reached Blair, he attempted to check his vitals when he heard additional gunshots and saw a silver four-door Chrysler sedan stopped in the middle of Hayes. Id. He saw a passenger of the vehicle standing near the door of the car and saw muzzle flashes. Realizing he had already emptied his entire magazine from his weapon, and fearing for his life, Harris fled through alley and yelled to a neighbor on the way to call 911. Id.

Four witnesses interviewed by the Detroit Police on the scene corroborated Harris's version of Blair being in possession of an object perceived as a weapon. All of these witnesses further stated that they saw an individual drive up in a silver vehicle and take an object from Blair's hand as he lay on the ground before Harris reached him. Several other witnesses stated that they heard two different weapons being discharged in the incident.

The police later arrested two other individuals (presumably individuals who were in the silver car observed Harris and the witnesses) who admitted being accomplices of Marquis Blair in the attempted theft of Harris's van. One of the arrestees admitted they fired at least one shot from a rifle at Harris as he stood over Blair at the intersection of Hayes and Houston–Whittier.4

Marquis Blair was transported from the scene to St. John's Hospital in Detroit and was pronounced dead on arrival. Though the Wayne County Medical Examiner pronounced Blair's death as a homicide, no criminal charges were brought against Harris. The Prosecutor's Office determined that the homicide of Blair was committed in lawful self-defense and in the apprehension of a fleeing felon.5

ROSALIND BLAIR'S TESTIMONY

Rosalind Blair, personal representative of the estate of Marquis Blair, testified at the damages hearing. Ms. Blair is also Marquis Blair's mother. She, testified that, at the time of his death, Marquis was 16 years old and was going to be in the 10th grade when school started the next month. She further testified that Marquis resided with her his whole life (except for a few months when he was six years old when he lived with his grandmother), and the two of them had a close relationship.

According to Ms. Blair, Marquis also had a close relationship with his grandparents and his four siblings, three of whom were younger than Marquis. (Marquis's older brother was killed two months before Marquis.) Marquis especially liked being a “big brother to his younger brother and sisters. Marquis did not really know his father. His mother testified that Marquis's father was in jail until Marquis was 7 or 8 years old and that thereafter Marquis only saw his father “now and then.”

Ms. Blair testified that she was, and still is, the primary provider in the family. At the time of Marquis's death, she worked as a manager of a Burger King. (She has since moved to Muncie, Indiana and is working at a McDonald's.)

As to what her son did for enjoyment, Ms. Blair said that Marquis liked listening to music, liked telling jokes and liked “hanging out” with his family. He especially enjoyed family functions he would attend with his cousins. Ms. Blair testified that Marquis did not participate in any school sports and did not play sports with his friends for fun, either, adding, by way of explanation, that her son was big and strong but “clumsy.”

Ms. Blair further testified that, as far as she knew, Marquis did not mess with drugs. However, prior to his death, he had been getting into some trouble outside of school and had been involved in several fights. He was arrested twice before the night of the shooting, for fighting, and was once convicted. But, Ms. Blair said she was never made aware that her son had gotten into stealing.

With regard to her son's death, Ms. Blair testified that she saw her son leave with his friend, Devon, and another boy early in the evening of August 4, 2007. She learned about his death at approximately 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon of the next day, August 5, when she got a telephone call from Devon, who was with Marquis on the night of the shooting. According to Ms. Blair, Devon actually had called her twice. The first time he called, he said that Marquis had been shot in the arm.6 Devon then called a second time around 2:00 p.m. on August 5th and told her that Marquis was dead. Ms. Blair went to the hospital and saw her dead son. She testified, however, that she was not permitted to touch him.

Ms. Blair testified that she had a funeral for her son but that she could not have the kind of funeral she wanted because she did not have enough money to do so having just incurred the expense of her older son's funeral only two months earlier. To cope with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Jones v. City of Hattiesburg
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • June 28, 2021
    ...at *1 (E.D. Tenn. June 13, 2016); Sahota v. Cobb, No. 14-2722, 2015 WL 6835480, at *3 (W.D. La. Nov. 6, 2015); Blair v. Harris, 993 F. Supp. 2d 721, 727 (E.D. Mich. 2014); Baker v. Union Township, Ohio, No. 1:12-cv-112, 2015 WL 6468386, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 27, 2015); Burge v. Par. of St. ......
  • Barefield v. Hillman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • July 27, 2020
    ...is well-settled that comparative fault does not apply to damages for violations of federal constitutional rights. Blair v. Harris , 993 F. Supp. 2d 721, 727 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (citing McHugh v. Olympia Entertainment, Inc., 37 F. App'x 730 (6th Cir. 2002) ). Accordingly, comparative fault sta......
  • Sahota v. Cobb
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • November 6, 2015
    ...well settled that comparative negligence does not apply to damages for federal constitutional rights violations." Blair v. Harris, 993 F.Supp.2d 721, 727 (E.D. Mich. 2014). Thus, Defendants cannot assert this defense to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgm......
  • Baker v. Union Twp., CASE NO.: 1:12-cv-112
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • October 27, 2015
    ...intentional tort case and the plaintiff's negligence in no way related to the allegations against the defendants); Blair v. Harris, 993 F. Supp. 2d 721, 727 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (the issue of comparative negligence arose in the context of a damages hearing—not a jury trial—and the trial court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT