FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB 6, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1472 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 97-03485 -CV -CA P-1 PA RAM IJIT S. VI RDI , an d a ll oth er s si m ilarl y

sit ua te d do ing busi ne ss a s V ir di A rc hit ec ts & A sso ci at es , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us DEKALB COUNTYSCHOOL DISTRICT, JA ME S R. H A L L FO RD , ind ivi dua lly and i n his of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s S upe ri nte nde nt, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (F eb ru ar y 6, 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T his c ivi l r igh ts s uit

is be fo re us f

or the thi rd ti m e, nowon a

m oti on f or attorney ’ s fees and no m inal dam ages. Virdi is an ar chitect and an Asian-A m erican of I ndi ande sc en t. H e sue d th e de fe ndants und er 42 U . S. C. §§ 1 981 an d 19 83, m ak ing tw o ba sic c la im s. F ir st, he a lle ge d th at the y dis cr im inate d a ga ins t hi m on the basis of race when aw arding architectural c ontracts. S econd, he alleged that the defendants operated a Minority Ve ndor Invol vem ent Program (“ MVP ”) that co nst itu te d af

ac ia lly unc onst itu tio na l sy ste m

of r ac ia l pr ef

er en ce s. Af ter an initial, par

tially successful appeal to this court, the district court gr an te d sum

m ar y j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndants on the f ac ia l c la im

and, a ft er

atr ia l, granted j udgm ent as a m atter of law to the defe ndants o n the intenti onal dis cr im inatio n c la im . O n a ppe al , w e af

fi rm ed the or de r gr an tin g j udgm en t a s a m atte r of lawon the int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n c la im . V ir di v . D ek al b C ounty Sc h. D ist . , 135 F ed . Appx. 262 , 268 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . H ow ev er , w e re ve rs ed the or de r gr an tin g part ia l sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe f

ac ia l c la im , hol din g th at

the MV P fa ile d stri ct

sc ru tin y be ca use it w as not narr ow ly ta ilo re d. I d. a t 26 7. O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e iss ue s of a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s and nom ina l dam ag es . I t de te rm ine d th at V ir di w as not

apr ev ai lin g party

w ith in the m ean in g o f 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 8( b) , and was t he refo re n ot en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees . T he c ourt a lso de te rm ine d th at V ir di’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh ts h ad not be envio la te d,3

so h e w as not

e nti tle d to nom ina l dam ag es . V ir di n owc ha lle nge s bo th r uli ngs on ap pe al . I. Inc er ta in c ivi l r igh ts a ct ion s, inc lud ing sui ts unde r 42 U . S. C. §§ 1 981 an d 1983 , “ the c ourt, in its dis cr et ion , m ay a llo wthe pr ev ai lin g party , oth er than th e Uni te d S ta te s, a re as on ab le att orne y ’s fee as pa rt o f th e co st s.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 1988 (b ). A s athr es hol d m atte r, apla int if f m ust sho wthat i t w as apr ev ai lin g party b e f o r e th e d i s tr i c tc o u rth a s d i s c r e t i o n t o aw a r da t t o rn e y’s f e e s . F a rr a r

v . Ho b b y, 506 U.S . 103, 109, 113 S. Ct. 566, 572 (199 2). In Far rar, the Suprem e Court set out the te st f or de te rm ini ng whe the r a party is “ pr ev ai lin g” w ith in the m eanin g of the statut e. “ U nde r our

ge ne ro us f

orm ulatio n of the te rm , pla int if

fs m ay be co nsi de re d pr ev ai lin g part ie s f or a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee pur pose s if the y suc ce ed on any sig nif ic an t i ssu e in l iti ga tio n w hic h a ch ie ve s so m e of the be ne fi t the part ie s so ught in b ri ngi ng s uit . ” F ar

rar, 506 U . S. a t 10 9, 113 S . Ct . a t 57 2 ( int er na l qu otatio n m arks om itted). T he Co urt r ec ogni ze d th at tw o c ondi tio ns m

ust e xis t be fo re thi s st an dard is m et . I n th e fi rs t pl ac e, “ a ci vil r igh ts p la int if f m ust obt ai n a t l ea st s om e re lie f on the m erits of his claim .” Id. at 111, 113 S. C t. at 573. Sec ond, “ [w ] hatever re lief4

the pla int if

f se cure s m

ust dir ec tly be ne fi t hi m

a t the ti m e of

the j udgm en t or se ttl em en t. ” I d. I n sum , “ a pla int if f ‘ pr ev ai ls’ w he n a ct

ua l r el ie f on the m er its of his c la im m at er ia lly

a lte rs the le ga l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n th e part ie s by m odi fy ing the de fe ndant’ s be ha vio r in a w ay that di re ct ly

be ne fi ts the pla int if

f. ” I d. T he Co urt i n F ar

rar ac know le dge d th at

not e ve ry te ch nic al vic tor

y in a law sui t i s su ff

ic ie nt t o c onf

er pr ev ai lin g party

status on a

c ivi l r igh ts p la int if

f. F or ex am ple , pla int if

fs are not c onsi de re d “pr ev ai lin g” if the y suc ce ed onl y in inv al idatin g ar eg ulatio n th at the de fe ndants ha d ne ve r ap pli ed or thr eate ne d to ap ply to the m . F ar

rar, 506 U . S. a t 11 3, 113 S . Ct . a t 57 4 ( ci tin g T ex . S ta te T ea ch er s A ss’ n v. G ar land I nde p. S ch . D ist . , 489 U . S. 782 , 792 , 109 S . Ct . 148 6, 1493 ( 1989 )) . W e not ed

anothe r sit

ua tio n w he re apla int if

f la ck s pr ev ai lin g party status in Bar

nes v. Br owar d CountySherif f’ s Of fice, 190 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 1999 ). T here the plaintiff succe eded only in securing an injunction agains t a preoffer m edical test that the district court determ ined vio lated the AD A. W e noted that “ the re is no e vid en ce that [ pla int if f] w as e lig ibl e to r e- ap ply f or the de puty posi tio n, nor

doe s he a lle ge that he int en de d to r e- ap ply or w oul d r e- ap ply

if the court we re to bar the c ontin ued use of the psy cholog ical exam ination s.” Id. at 1278 n. 3. B ec au se the re w as no e vid en ce to showthat the pla int if f “ dir ec tly be ne fi tte d” f

ro m the inj unc tio n, or

that “ thi s c hange in pol ic y a ff ec te d th e5

re la tio nshi p” be tw ee n th e pla int if f an d th e de fe ndant, the F ar rar te st w as not satisfied. I d. at 1278. T he fac t that the plainti ff “ conceivably could benefit” wer e he to ap ply

f or the j ob i n th e fu tur e w as not e noug h to sup port pr ev ai lin g party status . I d. D es pit e the e xc ep tio ns t o th e ge ne ra l r ule c ont ai ne d inG ar land and B ar ne s, t h e t e s tf o r p r e v a i l i n g p a rt y s t a tu s u n d e r F a rr a r i s ap e rmi s s i v e o n e . T h e S up r e me Court in Gar land rej ected a te st that required the plaintiff to win on the “ central issue” in the lawsuit, in part beca use “ [b] y focusing on the subjective im portance of an is sue to the li tig an ts, it a sks aque sti on whic h is a lm ost im poss ibl e to answer .” 489 U.S . 791, 109 S. Ct. 1493 . Instead, the plaintiff m ust sim ply succeed on s om e iss ue that m at er ia lly a lte rs the le ga l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n it and the d ef en d an t . “ Whe re s u ch a c h an g e h as o cc u rr ed , t h e d eg re e o f t h e p l ai n t i ff ’s ove ra ll suc ce ss g oe s to the r ea sona ble ne ss o f the aw ar d. . . not to the a va ila

bil ity of a fe e aw ard vel non.” I d. at 793, 109 S. Ct. 1494 . Ac cord Far rar, 506 U.S . at 114, 113 S . Ct . a t 57 4. The district court in this case applied our decision in Bar nes to hol d that Vird i was no t a p rev ai li ng pa rty andth us ha d n o e nt it le m en t t o a tt orne y ’s fees . D es pit e the or de r en

j oin ing the MV P pr ogr am , it f ound that the le ga l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n V ir di and the de fe ndants ha d no t c hange d, nor ha d V ir di d ir ec tly6

be ne fi tte d. C iti ng B ar

ne s, the c ourt no te d th at

apla int if f is n ot p re va ili ng i f it onl y

“ co nc ei vably ” co uld

be ne fi t f ro m the c hange d le ga l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n it and the de fe ndant. T he c ourt the n he ld tha t V ir di c oul d on ly c onc ei vably

be ne fi t f ro m the inj unc tio n, sin ce he m igh t no t ne ce ssari ly appl y f or anothe r co ntr ac t a t so m e poi nt in the future. T he court rec ogni zed that Vir di had filed an affidavit expressing an int en tio n to appl y

f or c ontra ct s inthe f

uture , but f ound that i t w as unt im el y

and, re gard le ss, onl y

sho w ed ac onc ei vable be ne fi t si nc e the re w as no a ssuranc e that he w o u l ds o ap p l y.

“ W e re vie wthe f

ac tua l f ind ing s un de rl y ing adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n regarding ‘ prevailing party ’ status for clear err or.” Church of Sc ientolo gy Flag Se rv . v. Ci ty

of Cl earw at er , 2 F . 3d 1 509, 151 2 ( 11th C ir . 199 3) . “ Whe the r the fa ct s a s f ound suf fi ce to re nde r the pla int if f a ‘ pr ev ai lin g party ’ is a le ga l qu es tio n re vie w ed de nov o. ” I d. a t 15 13. Whe the r the le ga l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n V ir di and the de fe ndants c hange d, and whe the r V ir di d ir ec tly be ne fi tte d f

ro m the inj unc tio n, are l eg al qu es ti on s, s o we app ly de n ov o re vi ew. W e fi nd tha t V ir di w as apr ev ai lin g party be ca use he obt ai ne d r el ie f on the m er its of ac la im that m at er ia lly

a lte re d th e le ga l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n hi m and the defendants and produ ced a dire ct benefit. V irdi challenged a program that gave a pr ef er en ce to A fr ic an -A m er ic anf irm s a ppl y ing f or arc hit ec tur al c ontra ct s w iththe7

de fe ndants . W e he ld tha t pr ogr am unc onst itu tio na l. V ir di n owno l onge r fa ce s th e obst ac le of

the unc onst itu tio na l pr ef er en ce . S houl d he bid

f or c ontra ct s w iththe de fen da nt s i n t he fut ur e, he wil l b e co ns id ered on a le ve l p la y in g fi el d. He rem ai ns in bu si ne ss , is eli gi bl e to ap pl y , and ha s ex pr es se d a n i nt en ti on to ap pl y . V ir di h as the re fo re dir ec tly be ne fi tte d f

ro m the inj unc tio n, w hic h ob vio usl y ch an ge d th e le ga l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n hi m and the de fe ndants by

pr ohi bit ing the defendants, under penalty of contem

pt, fr om apply ing an un constitu tional racial pr ef er en ce to V ir di’ s bi ds. Mor eo ve r, V ir di r ec ei ve d th is b en ef it at the ti m e the inj unc tio n w as e nte re d, as r equir ed

by F ar rar. S ee F ar

rar, 506 U . S. a t 11 1, 113 S . Ct . a t 57 3. A ft er the inj unc tio n is sue d, he w as able to ap ply f or c ontra ct s w ith out

f ac ing the disadvan tage caused by

the rac ial prefe rence. W e have re peatedly held that plaintiffs who secure inj unction s against various form s of discrim ination are pr ev ai lin g part ie s un de r se ct ion198 8( b) . S ee , e . g. , E nsl ey Br an ch , N A A CP v. Se ibe ls, 31 F . 3d 1 548, 158 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 4) ; R uf fi n v. G re at

D an e T ra ile rs , 969 F . 2 d9 8 9 , 9 9 3 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) . Vi r d i wa s l i k e w i s e ap r e v a i l i n g p a rt y. O ur de ci sio n inBarn es is not to the c ontrary . I n th at

c as e, w e w er e care fu l to n ote that w e did

not “ fo re cl ose the pos sib ili ty that an e m

plo ym en t dis cr im inatio n pl ai nti ff

w ho r ec ei ve s on ly

inj unc tiv e re lie f m ay

be e nti tle d to8

attor ne y ’ s f ee s whe re the pla int if

f es ta bli she s th at

he c ont inu es to ha ve or

is re as ona bly li ke ly to ha ve som e le ga l r el at ion shi p to the de fe ndant. ” Barn es , 190 F. 3d at 12 78 n . 3. B ar

ne s, how ev er , ha d no t sh ow n th at he w as r ea sona

bly li ke ly to ha ve som e co nti nui ng r el at ion shi p w iththe de fe ndant b ec au se the re w as “ no ev ide nc e that B ar

ne s w as e lig ibl e to r e- ap ply f or the de puty

pos iti on, nor

[ did ] he al le ge that he int en de d to r e- ap ply or w oul d r e- ap ply

if the c ourt w er e to b ar

the co nti nue d us e of

the psy ch olo gic al e xa m inatio ns. ” I d. E ve n a ssu m ing that, a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt be lie ve d, V ir di’ s a ff idavit expr es sin g an in te nti on t o a ppl y f or c ontra ct s inthe f

uture w as not

ti m el y f ile d, e v i d e n c e a l r e a dy i n th e r e c o r ds h o w e dth a th e w a s r e a s o n ab l y l i k e l y t o h a v e s o me co nti nui ng r el at ion shi p w iththe de fe ndant. I t i s un dis put ed that he r em ai ns a qua lif ie d, e lig ibl e, w orkin g arc hit ec t i n th e dis tr ic t w ho h as appl ie d f or c ontra ct s with the city

on num erous prior occasions, and who pursued a lengthylaw suit th at ev en tua lly

se cure d in

j unc tiv e re lie f to e lim inate an un co nst itu tio na l barr ie r to ha vin g hi s bi ds a cc ep te d. U nli ke in Barn es , w he re w e fo und it im poss ibl e ev ento inf er that the pla int if

f w oul d a ppl y f or apart ic ular pol ic e j ob a ga in, he re it is ea sy to infer fr om

fac ts in the record that Vir di is reasonably likely to apply for f uture contracts with the district. The w orry in Barnes about a m erely hy poth etical be ne fi t i s si m

ply not pr es en t.9

T he na tur e of

the r el ie f V ir di s ec ur ed

a lso arg ue s inf

av or of gr an tin g hi m prevailing party

status. A n injunction is n ot ligh tly entered. T o have Article III st an di ng to pu rs ue in

jun ct iv e rel ie f, ev en ag ai ns t v io la ti on s o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on , a pla int if f m ust have m or e than am er el y hy pothe tic al gr ie vanc e: he or she m ust ha ve an in

j ur y in fa ct that i s c ap ab le of

be ing r edre sse d by

the inj unc tio n. L os A nge le s v. L y ons, 461 U . S. 95, 101 , 103 S . Ct . 166 0, 166 5 ( 1983 ). P as t w ro ngs are i ns uf fic ie nt to sh ow an en ti tl em en t t o a n i nju nc ti on ag ai ns t fu tu re wro ng s. Id . Moreover, standing is a j urisdictio nal bar. Id. T o have standin g to challenge a pr ogr am li ke the one in thi s c as e, apla int if f m ust “ de m onstrate that i t i s a

ble and re ady to bid on c ontra ct s and tha t a

dis cr im inator

y pol ic y pr ev en ts i t f

ro m doi ng s o o n an e qu a l b a s i s . ” N o rt h e a s t e rn F l a . C h ap t e r o f A s s o c i a t e dG e n . C o n t r s . o f A m. v. Ci ty of Ja ck so nv il le , 50 8 U.S. 6 56 , 66 6, 1 13 S. Ct. 2 29 7, 2 30 3 (1 99 3) . Ther efore, for V irdi to have standi ng to p ursue injunctive relief , he necessarily

had to sho w that he w as rea dy and able to bid on contracts, which m eans that he wa s dir ec tly be ne fi tte d w he n he suc ce ssf ull y obt ai ne d th e inj unc tio n th at le ve le d th e play ing field. Acontrary positi on would require us to believe that th e court lacked subject m atter j urisdictio n when it entere d the injunction. W e do not believe that wa s the case. Obtaining an injunction is thus st rong evidence sho wing that a plaintiff w as10

a prevailing party

for purposes of section 198 8. W e have previously noted that obt ai nin g an in

j unc tio n is avic tor

y “ dif fe re nt i n ki nd” f

ro m avic tor y that ob ta ins onlynom inal dam ages. Ruffin, 969 F.2d at 994 n.3. T his is b ecause nom inal da m ag es do n ot r equir e a show ing of a ct ua l i nj ur y w hil e “ [a ] n in

j unc tio n is ina ppr opr ia te if

the pos sib ili ty

of f uture harm

to the pla int if

f ar isi ng o ut o f the be ha vio r pla int if

f se ek s to e nj oinis pur el y spe cu la tiv e. ” I d. a t 99 5. Y et the Su pr em e Co urt i n F ar

rar he ld tha t a

pe rs on who o bta ins onl y nom ina l dam ag es , w hic h do not

r equir e a show ing of

a ct ua l i nj ur y , is al w ay s apr ev ai lin g party wit hi n t he m ean in g o f se ct io n 1 98 8. Fa rrar , 50 6 U.S. at 11 2, 1 13 S. Ct. at 57 3. A pe rs on who o bta ins an in j unc tio n, w hic h do es r equir e a show ing of inj ur y in fa ct , shou ld thu s ordinarily

be entitled to prevailing party status as a m atter of c ourse. Our dec ision in Barnes, wher e the plaintiff did obtain an injunction, is a r are counterexam

ple to this general r

ule, where there wa s no record evidence of a fu tur e lik el iho od o f dir ec t be ne fi t. I n V ir di’ s c as e, w he re the pla int if f ha s pr ope rl y obt ai ne d an in

j unc tio n and whe re the re is cl ear re co rd e vid en ce sup portin g a re as ona ble li ke lih ood of

af uture r el at ion shi p w iththe de fe ndant, it is ina ppr opr ia te f

or adis tr ic t c ourt t o de ny

pr ev ai lin g st at

us b y spe cu la tin g a

bout whe th er t he pl ai nt iff

is cert ai n t o t ak e ad va nt ag e o f th e ch an ge d l eg al lan ds cap e. T he pla int if

f cl earl y ne ed not sho w , to a m orta l c er

ta inty , that he w ill de fi nit el y11

ap ply f or ac ontra ct

in the f uture . B ar

ne s on ly r equir es him

to showthat he is re as ona bly li ke ly to ap ply in the f uture . V ir di h as m ad e that sh ow ing . T he appe lle es ’ oth er

obj ec tio ns t o pr ev ai lin g party status are le ss subs tanti al . T he f

ac t tha t V ir di d id n ot o bta in a c ontra ct w iththe de fe ndants a s a result of this litig ation is imm aterial. T he injury caused by

unconst itutio nal racia l dis cr im inatio n is not

the ina bil ity to pr oc ur e a part ic ular co ntr ac t, but r athe r the barr ie r se t up by

the il lic it co ndi tio n. “ [I ] n th e co nte xt o f a ch al le nge to a se t- as ide pr ogr am , the ‘ inj ur

y in fa ct ’ is the ina

bil ity to co m pe te on an e qua l f

oot ing in the bid din g pr oc es s, not

the los s of

ac ontra ct . ” N orthe as te rnF la . Ch ap te r of the A sso ci at ionof

G en . Co ntr ac tor s of

A m . v. Ci ty

of Ja ck sonv ill e, 508 U . S. 656 , 666 , 113 S. Ct. 2297 , 2303 (1993). A fter V irdi secured the inj unction , he no lon ger fa ce d th is unc onst itu tio na l barr ie r. H e fo rc ed the de fe ndants to ch an ge pos iti on i n a w ay that directly

benefitted him , and was theref ore a “prevailing party ” on that issue. T he appe lle es a lso a lle ge that the unc onst itu tio na l pr ogr am did not ope rate fo r a num be r of y ears be fo re the inj unc tio n w as e nte re d, m eanin g th at the inj unc tio n di d no t c onf

er any r ea l be ne fi t onV ir di. T his arg um en t i s w ith out m er it. N o c ourt e ve r he ld tha t the c ontro ve rs y be tw ee n V ir di and the de fe ndants w as m oot . T he de fe ndants ’ c la im is al so b el ie d by

the ir vig or ous de fe nse of

the12

la wsu it an d t he ir f

ai lu re t o c on ced e th atth e p ro gr am was fa ci al ly unc on st it ut io na l. Moreover, even if the program had been tem

porarily disconti nued, V irdi achieved a be ne fi t thr oughobt ai nin g th e inj unc tio n, by e nsur ing that the pr ogr am is now pe rm an en tly

dis co nti nue d. T he appe lle es f

ina lly arg ue that V ir di i s no t a

pr ev ai lin g party

be ca use he did not a cc om pli sh wha t he se t ou t t o do . T ha t, a cc or din g to the appe lle es , w as to pr ove that the de fe ndants int en tio na lly dis cr im inate d a ga ins t hi m . T his arg um en t is sim ply false: f rom the beginni ng, V irdi also set out to show that the program wa s facially

unconst itutio nal. I t is also entirely irrele vant what V irdi’ s central co nc er n w as . T he S upr em e Co urt i n G ar land r ej ec te d th e ce ntr al iss ue te st f or prevailing party

status that was form erly

applied in th is circuit. “ [T ] he very im port of Garland is that a plaintiff need only prevail on one sign ificant issue to qualify as a prevailing party . . . Thus, the f act that [def

endant] obtained relief on no oth er iss ue is ir re le vant. ” Ru ff

in, 969 F . 2d at 99 3- 4. T he f ac t tha t V ir di p re va ile d in o n e mat e r i a l r e s p e c ti s s u f f i c i e n tt o s h o wth a th e wa s ap r e v a i l i n g p a rt y. O n r em an d, it

r em ai ns f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de te rm ine the pr ope r am ount of a tto rn ey ’ s f

ee s to be aw ar de d inthi s c as e. “ T he a m ount of the f ee . . . m ust be de te rm ine d onthe f

ac ts o f ea chc as e. ” H en sle y v. E ck er hart , 461 U . S. 424 , 429 , 103 S. Ct . 193 3, 193 7 ( 1983 ). W e the re fo re e xpr es s no opi nio n onthe a m ount of13

attorney ’ s fees to w hich Virdi m ay be entitled, but holdonly that he has de m onstrate d pr ev ai lin g party status . II. The di st ric t co ur t al so fou nd th atVird i was no t en ti tl edto no m in al da m ag es . It co n s t ru ed o u r o p i n i o n as h o l d i n g th at th e d ef en d an t s d i dn o tv i o l at e V i rd i ’s co n s t i tu t i o n al ri g h t s . We d i s ag re e. In o u r p ri o r o p i n i o n , we h el dth at Vi rd i ’s int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n c la im w as w ith out

m er it. V ir di v . D ek al b C ounty S ch . Dist., 135 Fed. Appx. 262, 269 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). But we also held that the sy stem of rac ial prefe rences w as fac ially unconst itutio nal. I d. at 268. W e never said that Virdi had not suffered a

constitu tional vi olation . Im plicitly , w e said the oppo site: Virdi had suffer ed a constitutio nal violatio n by being sub

j ect to an unc onst itu tio na l pr ogr am of r ac ia l pr ef

er en ce s inthe pa st and b y f ac ing a reasonable likelihoo d of being su bje ct to the program in the future. If it had been oth er w ise , V ir di w oul d have ha d no standi ng, be ca use pe opl e w ithge ne ra liz ed or hy pothe tic al gr ie vanc es a ga ins t un co nst itu tio na l pr ogr am s do not have standi ng t o pursue injunctive relief in f ederal c ourt. L y ons, 461 U.S . at 101, 103 S. Ct. at 1665 . T he f

ac t tha t V ir di s uf

fe re d ac onst itu tio na l vi olatio n m eans tha t he isIn B onne r v . Ci ty of Pr ic ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 07 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (e n b anc ), thi s 1 Court adopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions handed down by the forme r F ifth Circuit before the close of

business on September 30, 1981. 14 en tit le d to an aw ar d of

nom ina l dam ag es . “ W e ha ve he ld una m big uous ly that a plaintiff whose constitut ional rights are violated is entit led to nom inal dam ages ev enif he suf fe re d no c om

pe nsa ble inj ur y . ” S lic ke r v. Ja ck son, 215 F . 3d 1 225, 1231 -2 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) ( in c ont ex t of F ourth A m en dm en t vi olatio n) . S ee a lso Care y v. P iphu s, 435 U. S. 247, 267, 98 S. C t. 1042, 1054 (197 8) (holding plaintiff en tit le d to nom ina l dam ag es w he re sho w s pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s vi olatio n bu t no ac tua l i nj ur

y ); F am ili as U nid as v. Br isc oe , 619 F . 2d 3 91, 402 ( 5thCi r. 198 0) (aw ar din g no m ina l dam ag es f or F ir st A m en dm en t vi olatio n) ; H odge v. S ei le r, 558 1 F. 2d 2 84, 288 ( 5thCi r. 197 7) ( aw ar din g no m ina l dam ag es to pla int if f subj ec te d to unc onst itu tio na l di sc ri m inatio n w ho c oul d pr ove no a ct ua l dam ag es ). B y

sho w ing that the MV P pr ogr am

w as f ac ia lly unc onst itu tio na l, V ir di b ec am e en tit le d to nom ina l dam ag es . Appellees finally

argue that V irdi waived his entitlem ent to nom inal da m ag es . I t i s tr

ue that w e ha ve he ld, in the E igh th A m en dm en t c ont ex t, that a plaintiff waives a

claim for nom inal dam ages by

failing to request a nom inal da m ag es jury in st ru ct io n. Ol iv er v . Fal la , 25 8 F .3d12 77 , 12 82 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). This principle is not app licable here, however, because V irdi’ s claim of fac ial15

uncons titutio nality

never w ent to trial. T he district court granted summ ary ju d g m en tt o th e d ef

en d an t s p ri o r t o tri al o n th e f ac i al co n s t i tu t i o n al i t y i s s u e. We the n r ev er se d th e dis tr ic t c ourt a ft er tr ia l and j udgm en t a s am atte r of lawon the int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n c la im . V ir di n ev er ha d ane ed

or an op portun ity

to re que st j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns o n no m ina l dam ag es f or the f ac ia l un co nst itu tio na lity cl ai m . I n hi s c om

pla int , V ir di r eque ste d m one tary dam ag es , so h e did

not w ai ve an y e nti tle m en t t o no m ina l dam ag es . V ir di’ s no m ina l dam ag es pr ovi de anothe r re as on why it w as e rr or

f or the d i s t r i c tc o u rtt o c o n c l u d e th a tV i r d i w a s n o tap r e v a i l i n g p a rt y. T h e S up r e me Court has explicitlyheld that nom inal dam ages on a claim are sufficient to supp ort pr ev ai lin g party

status . F ar

rar, 506 U . S. a t 11 2, 113 S . Ct . a t 57 3. B ec au se V ir di suc ce ed ed

on a sig nif ic an t i ssu e that m at er ia lly c hange d th e le ga l r el at ion shi p be tw ee n hi m

and the de fe ndants , in the f orm of the inj unc tio n and i n th e fo rm of nom ina l dam ag es , he w as apr ev ai lin g party . I t r em ai ns f or the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de te rm ine the appr opr ia te a m ount of nom ina l dam ag es and atto rn ey ’ s f ee s to be aw arded in this case. REVERSED AND REMANDED.