Court Opinion

ID: 9473332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:26:43.376836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:27.750903
License: Public Domain

HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the majority that the district court committed no error in declining to amend the judgment to include injunctive relief. But I am of the view that an award of nominal damages is mandatory when plaintiff has proven a deprivation of constitutional right, and that the jury should have been so instructed. Therefore I respectfully dissent from this part of the majority’s decision.
In Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978), the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that “the denial of procedural due process should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury.” Id. at 266, 98 S.Ct. at 1054. It followed this language with the direction that, even if on remand the plaintiffs could prove no damages arising from being denied due process, they “will be entitled to recover nominal damages not to exceed one dollar”. Id. at 267, 98 S.Ct. at 1054 (emphasis added). The majority suggests that the Supreme Court in Carey “did not expressly address the question” of whether nominal damages are mandatory. The language of the Court belies the majority’s assertion. The Court specifically instructed the district court that the plaintiffs there would be entitled — not “might be entitled” — to nominal damages on remand if they proved a denial of constitutional right. The district court there could hardly ignore this direct order, nor should we here where the jury has found that Ganey’s rights were violated.
The majority’s holding also contradicts earlier Fourth Circuit precedent. In Burt v. Abel, 585 F.2d 613 (4 Cir.1978), we correctly interpreted Carey to mean that “damages, other than nominal damages, are not presumed to flow from every deprivation of procedural due process.” Burt at 616. The unavoidable implication of this statement is that nominal damages are presumed for every such deprivation. The Burt decision then stated that, absent *342proof of actual damages, the district court “shall” — not “may” — “enter an award in plaintiffs favor of nominal damages not to exceed one dollar.” Id. at 616. This statement was not “note[d] in passing,” as the majority suggests, but was a specific instruction to the district court.
The majority further errs in discerning no legal consequences that require imposing a nominal damage award. First, in some cases such recovery is necessary to qualify plaintiff as a prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. See Basiardanes v. City of Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203, 1220 (5 Cir.1982); Cook & Sobieski, Civil Rights Actions, U 4.07 at 4-51 (1984). To be a prevailing party, a litigant must achieve some of the benefit sought in bringing suit. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Awarding nominal damages insures that those who prove a constitutional deprivation are designated prevailing parties even if they can obtain no other relief.
Second, failing to recognize that the jury must award nominal damages here as a matter of law leaves the decision whether to award such damages to the jury’s unbounded and unprincipled discretion, since the jury was instructed only that it “may” award nominal damages. The majority styles the decision of whether to make such an award a “question of fact,” but it is hard to fathom what “factual” question the jurors would be deciding, or the standard guiding their decision. The majority would thus have the jury decide a seemingly trivial question, based perhaps on the popularity of plaintiff or his cause, that might determine the availability of attorney’s fees. The availability of attorney’s fees, and thus the vindication of constitutional rights, should not turn on a jury’s arbitrary whim.
I would reverse the district court’s judgment as to damages and direct it to award plaintiff a sum not in excess of $1.00. In all other respects I am satisfied to affirm.