Hinchman v. Moore

• Decision Date: 02 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. 00-2457.,No. 01-2446.,00-2457.,01-2446.
• Parties: Bonnie Lee HINCHMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edwin L. MOORE Jr. and Robert A. Dombrowski, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 198

312 F.3d 198

Bonnie Lee HINCHMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edwin L. MOORE Jr. and Robert A. Dombrowski, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-2457.

No. 01-2446.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted: October 30, 2002.

Decided and Filed: December 2, 2002.

Victoria Eva Abdella (briefed), Franklin, MI, Marvin L. Berris (briefed), Bingham Farms, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Marcelyn A. Stepanski (argued and briefed), S. Randall Field (briefed), Johnson, Rosati, Labarge, Aseltyne & Field, Farmington Hills, MI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Circuit Judge; NELSON and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

GILMAN, Circuit Judge.

Bonnie Lee Hinchman, while driving her car in Ann Arbor, Michigan, was pulled over and arrested by a Michigan state trooper after the trooper received a radio dispatch that Hinchman had assaulted a Livingston County Sheriff's Department officer. Hinchman was bound over for trial following a preliminary hearing before a state court judge, who found probable cause for her arrest on a charge of felonious assault. After being acquitted following a jury trial, Hinchman filed the present lawsuit against Livingston County Sheriff's Department Detectives Robert Dombrowski and Edwin Moore Jr. She contended, among other things, that the defendants had fabricated the facts to establish probable cause. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and also granted in part and denied in part the defendants' subsequent motion for costs and attorney fees. Hinchman now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in granting both motions. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

On June 5, 1997, the body of Thomas Margellar Jr. was discovered by passing motorists in Livingston County, Michigan. Linda Margellar, the decedent's former wife, agreed to assist the Livingston County Sheriff's Department with the investigation into Thomas's death. When asked at the Sheriff's Department if she wished to contact anyone for emotional support, Linda told Detective Dombrowski that she would like to call her "best friend" Hinchman. Linda slept at Hinchman's apartment throughout the investigation.

A search of Linda's residence by Sheriff's Department officers revealed that Thomas was assaulted in the garage. Linda subsequently admitted that she and her brother killed Thomas. Due to the close relationship between Hinchman and Linda and the fact that Linda slept at Hinchman's apartment immediately following the murder, Dombrowski called Hinchman to arrange for an interview. Unable to set up a time to interview Hinchman, Dombrowski and Moore drove to Hinchman's apartment, where they talked with Hinchman through her closed front door. The officers left the vicinity after Hinchman advised them that she did not wish to speak with them.

Dombrowski and Moore then discussed the situation over the police radio with another Livingston County Sheriff's Department detective, who advised them to return to Hinchman's apartment complex and await the arrival of an investigative subpoena that was being prepared for service on Hinchman by the Livingston County Prosecutor's Office. When they arrived at the apartment complex, they saw Hinchman exit her apartment carrying a laundry basket filled with clothes. She quickened her pace toward her car as Dombrowski and Moore approached her. After placing the basket in the car, she entered and closed the door.

Dombrowski asked Hinchman to stay, explaining to her that she would be served with an investigative subpoena shortly. Hinchman replied that she was not willing to talk with the officers at that time, and she started her car's engine. From here, the parties' versions of the facts differ. According to Hinchman, Moore was "holding the car" with his hands on the trunk and, upon her telling Moore that she was leaving, Moore moved aside. She then backed her car up — keeping Moore and Dombrowski in sight — and left the parking lot. Hinchman maintains that she never struck Moore with her car.

Moore, on the other hand, contends that Hinchman "placed the car in reverse and looked straight up" without warning him or otherwise giving him an opportunity to get out of the way of the car. He claims that she proceeded to hit him with her car, which "knocked [him] off balance" and forced Moore to grab the back of the car to prevent him from being dragged underneath. Hinchman then allegedly stopped the car, looked back at Moore, and continued backing up, striking Moore once again. Although the officers demanded that Hinchman stop, she drove away.

Dombrowski and Moore followed Hinchman, who drove at a normal pace and observed all traffic laws. They requested that a Michigan state trooper pull her over. Trooper Lou Taylor then stopped the car and arrested Hinchman for felonious assault. He noticed hand prints and other smudges in the film of dust covering the rear of Hinchman's car.

On September 30, 1997, a state court judge determined that there was probable cause for charging Hinchman with the crime of felonious assault. The judge based his decision on the testimony of Dombrowski and Moore, with no one else taking the stand. Hinchman was bound over for trial. She was subsequently acquitted by a jury on the criminal charge.

B. Procedural background

Hinchman filed the present lawsuit on June 11, 1999, alleging violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as state-law claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. It held that Hinchman was barred from relitigating the issue of probable cause, the absence of which was necessary in order for her to prevail on all of her claims other than her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim. The court held in the alternative that probable cause for her arrest existed. Finally, in a ruling that Hinchman does not appeal, the court dismissed Hinchman's Fourteenth Amendment claim.

The defendants subsequently filed a motion for costs and attorney fees, which the district court granted in part and denied in part, awarding $3,043.23 in costs to the defendants. Hinchman then filed this timely appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment

1. Standard of review

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Sperle v. Michigan Dep't of Corr., 297 F.3d 483, 490 (6th Cir.2002). Summary judgment is proper where there exists no issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering such a motion, the court construes all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The central issue is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

2. Hinchman's claims

As the district court correctly noted, Hinchman must prove a lack of probable cause in order for her to prevail on her Fourth Amendment and state-law claims. Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259, 262 (6th Cir.1988) ("[T]he Fourth Amendment requires the States to provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty. Thus, arrest without a warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment if probable cause exists for the arresting officer's belief that a suspect has violated or is violating the law.") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); Burns v. Olde Discount Corp., 212 Mich.App. 576, 538 N.W.2d 686, 688 (1995) ("A claim of false arrest requires proof that the arrest lacked probable cause. Similarly, a malicious prosecution claim requires proof that there was no probable cause for the proceeding.") (internal citation omitted); Tope v. Howe, 179 Mich. App. 91, 445 N.W.2d 452, 459 (1989) ("In order to prevail on a claim of false arrest or false imprisonment, the plaintiff must show that the arrest was ... made without probable cause."). The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment because (1) the state judge at the preliminary hearing determined that there was probable cause to arrest Hinchman, thus precluding her from relitigating the issue in this action, and (2) in any event, the record indicates that probable cause existed to arrest and prosecute Hinchman.

a. Collateral estoppel

A finding in a prior criminal proceeding may estop an individual from relitigating the same issue in a subsequent civil action. Emich Motors Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 340 U.S. 558, 568-69, 71 S.Ct. 408, 95 L.Ed. 534 (1951) (holding that "plaintiffs are entitled to introduce the prior judgment to establish prima facie all matters of fact and law necessarily decided by the conviction and the verdict on which it was based"). "[A] federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered." Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). Under Michigan law, collateral estoppel applies when

1) there is identity of parties across the proceedings, 2) there was a valid, final judgment in the first proceeding, 3) the same issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in the first proceeding, and 4) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier proceeding.

Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 255 F.3d...