Opinion
Case No. 2:94-CV-00064 PGC, Case no. 2.94 CV-0627 (Consolidated with Case No. 2:96-CV-0367 Paul B. Jones action), Case no. 2.94-CV-0287, Case No. 2:99-CV-0149, (Consolidated with Case No. 2.99-CV-0406 Steven Briggs action)
June 2, 2004
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Before the court is the motion (#203-1) of Plaintiffs Farnsworth and Mohi for an award of nominal damages pursuant to the court's adoption (#200-1) of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (#169-1) in these consolidated cases. Plaintiffs' motion requests nominal damages in the amount of "one dollar ($1.00) per day for each day (after the first ten (10)) each plaintiff was incarcerated in the Salt Lake County Jail while the unconstitutional total ban on inmate receipt of newspapers and magazines was in place." Based on this formula, Plaintiff Farnsworth requests $191.00 in nominal damages, while Plaintiff Mohi requests $252.00. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' motion acknowledges that nominal damages are appropriate. However, Defendants reject the formula proposed by Plaintiffs, arguing instead that each plaintiff should only be awarded a total of one dollar.
Nominal damages are "damages awarded for the infraction of a legal right, where the extent of loss is not shown, or where the right is one not dependent upon loss or damage. . . ." C. McCormick, Damages § 20 at 85 (1935). "Nominal damages are not compensation for loss or injury, but rather recognition of a violation of rights." Redding v. Fairman, 717 F.2d 1105, 1119 (7th Cir. 1983). Thus, "[n]ominal damages do not purport to measure anything, as compensatory and punitive damages do, but rather exist as a `purely symbolic vindication of [a] constitutional right.'" Cummings v. Connell, 281 F. Supp.2d 1187, 1192 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (quoting Schneider v. County of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784, 795 (9th Cir. 2002)).
The formula suggested by Plaintiffs is not in keeping with the theory underlying the nominal damages remedy. Because an award of nominal damages is a purely symbolic gesture which merely acknowledges that protected rights were violated, there is no need to multiply the award by the number of days Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights, or the number of unconstitutional acts Defendants committed. By multiplying the standard nominal award of one dollar by the number of days their rights were violated, Plaintiffs are quantifying the amount of damages they suffered, essentially turning nominal damages into compensatory damages. The error of this approach is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the same rationale Plaintiffs use to justify their per-day formula could just as easily apply to a per-minute or per-second formula that would lead to an absurd result.
Furthermore, there is no precedential support for Plaintiffs' formula. The only case cited by Plaintiffs as precedent for their dollar-per-day formula is DiMarco v. Wyoming Department of Corrections, No. 03-CV-1006-B, 2004 WL 307421 (D. Wyo. Feb. 18, 2004). In that case, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to "only nominal or minimal damages," but then ordered the defendants "to pay Plaintiff $1000.00 in damages for the Defendants' violation of her Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights." Id. at * 13. The DiMarco court did not explain how it arrived at the $1000.00 figure, nor did it specifically identify the award as purely nominal damages. Most importantly, however, that award clearly was not based on the number of days that the plaintiffs' rights were violated. Finally, as Defendants have pointed out, other courts have awarded a total of one dollar in nominal damages to similarly situated plaintiffs. See Thomas v. Leslie, Nos. 97-3346, 97-3361, 1999 WL 281416, at *6 (10th Cir. (Kan.) Apr. 21, 1999) (awarding one dollar in nominal damages for 18 month unconstitutional ban on newspapers); Kincaid v. Rusk, 670 F.2d 737, 745-46 (7th Cir. 1982) (inmate awarded one dollar in nominal damages for unconstitutional ban on reading material lasting fourteen weeks).
Based on the foregoing analysis, the court concludes that Plaintiffs Farnsworth and Mohi are entitled to a total award of one dollar ($1.00) each, as nominal damages for the Salt Lake County Jail's unconstitutional ban on newspapers prior to June 1, 1994.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) judgment against Salt Lake County in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) be entered in favor of Plaintiff Charles Farnsworth; and,
(2) judgment against Salt Lake County in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) be entered in favor of Plaintiff Asi Mohi.