From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Magnett v. Pelletier

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Nov 26, 1973
488 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1973)

Summary

holding that award of $500 in "nominal damages" in Section 1983 action "cannot be properly regarded as nominal damages" but "[s]ince it is conceivable that the court misspoke itself, fairness dictates a remand for further findings or articulation. . . ."

Summary of this case from Corpus v. Bennett

Opinion

No. 73-1276.

Argued November 5, 1973.

Decided November 26, 1973.

Paul F. Markham, Boston, Mass., with whom Moulton, Looney, Mazzone, Falk Markham, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for defendant-appellant.

Ernest Winsor, Boston, Mass., with whom Paula W. Gold, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, and ALDRICH and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.


In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Magnett sought to recover damages from various police officers, ultimately reduced to Rhodes, a police sergeant, for invading his premises and for an alleged assault causing him physical and emotional injuries. Defendant, concededly without a warrant, had entered plaintiff's apartment and a room in which plaintiff's four small children were sleeping. Following trial the court made extensive findings, Magnett v. Pelletier, D.Mass. 1973, 360 F. Supp. 902, disbelieving defendant's testimony and that of his subordinate officers alleging consent and physical provocation by the plaintiff, and concluding that the intrusion had been unlawful. It also stated, however:

"I am not persuaded that either an assault or a battery was committed on Mr. Magnett by Sergeant Rhodes or Officer Sylvia, nor am I persuaded that any harm was done to any one of the Magnett children. Having in mind that Mr. Magnett conceded that he never consulted a physician subsequent to and because of this incident, and that any loss of time from work he thereafter sustained, was unrelated to this incident, I find that Mr. Magnett did not suffer physical or emotional damage."

The court further found no basis for punitive damages, but concluded as follows.

"Having in mind that the intended purpose of the Civil Rights Act was the protection and vindication of the civil rights of all persons, nominal damages have been proved once an invasion or deprivation of a right to which plaintiff was entitled has been shown. Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74 at 87 (3 Cir. 1965). Nominal damages need not be alleged in a civil rights case in order to permit their recovery. Accordingly, I find for plaintiff in the amount of $500 against the defendant. . . ."

We agree with defendant that $500 cannot be properly regarded as nominal damages. Nominal damages are a mere token, signifying that the plaintiff's rights were technically invaded even though he suffered, or could prove, no loss or damage. Chesapeake Potomac Tel. Co. v. Clay, 1952, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 206, 194 F.2d 888; "a small or token sum awarded to a person who has been wronged but who has not shown such an injury as to be entitled to compensatory damages." Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1968). Other dictionaries use the word "trifling." E. g., Black's Law Dictionary 469 (Rev. 4th ed. 1968); Bouvier's Law Dictionary 2353 (3rd rev. 1914). If a compensable injury has been shown, compensatory damages must be given; if not, nominal damages should not be used to compensate plaintiff in any substantial manner, since he has shown no right to such compensation. We do not accept those decisions that have awarded as nominal damages more than a token amount. Five hundred dollars charged against an individual police officer is no mere token.

This is not to say that in a civil rights action a plaintiff who proves only an intangible loss of civil rights or purely mental suffering may not be awarded substantial compensatory damages. Smith v. Sol D. Adler Realty Co., 7 Cir., 1970, 436 F.2d 344, 350-351; Donovan v. Reinbold, 9 Cir., 1970, 433 F.2d 738, 743; Richardson v. Communications Workers of America, 8 Cir., 1971, 443 F.2d 974, 984-985. It is possible that the court may have misused the word nominal, and really intended to compensate plaintiff for actual, though wholly impalpable, injuries. But if so, a recital of such damages should not be left to a word of art whose ordinary meaning is just the opposite.

Since it is conceivable that the court misspoke itself, fairness dictates a remand for further findings or articulation, if the court deems them warranted in the light of this opinion. If the court does not believe such to be warranted, the award shall be reduced to the sum of $1.00. No costs on this appeal.


Summaries of

Magnett v. Pelletier

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Nov 26, 1973
488 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1973)

holding that award of $500 in "nominal damages" in Section 1983 action "cannot be properly regarded as nominal damages" but "[s]ince it is conceivable that the court misspoke itself, fairness dictates a remand for further findings or articulation. . . ."

Summary of this case from Corpus v. Bennett

holding that $500 cannot properly be regarded as nominal damages

Summary of this case from Okoli v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore

holding that a damage award of $500 in a civil rights case was not "nominal"

Summary of this case from Adams v. Rivera

refusing to permit an award of nominal damages in excess of one dollar in civil rights action although trial court had awarded $500

Summary of this case from Huntley v. Community Sch. Bd. of Brooklyn

In Magnett v. Pelletier, 488 F.2d 33, 35 (1st Cir. 1974), the court held that an award of $500.00 to plaintiff in a civil rights action could not properly be regarded as nominal damages and, if compensatory damages were not warranted, "the award shall be reduced to the sum of $1.

Summary of this case from United States ex Rel. Tyrrell v. Speaker

explaining that an award of $500 “cannot be properly regarded as nominal damages” and reducing an award of nominal damages to $1

Summary of this case from Tutora v. Campbell

explaining that an award of $500 "cannot be properly regarded as nominal damages," and reducing nominal damages award to $1.00

Summary of this case from Am. Infertility of N.Y., P.C. v. Deep Blue Health N.Z. Ltd.

reducing nominal damages award in civil rights case from $500 to $1

Summary of this case from Hershell Gill Consulting Engineers v. Miami-Dade Cty
Case details for

Magnett v. Pelletier

Case Details

Full title:RONALD MAGNETT, PLAINTIFF, APPELLEE, v. JOSEPH PELLETIER ET AL.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: Nov 26, 1973

Citations

488 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1973)

Citing Cases

Okoli v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore

Citing authority from this and other circuits that nominal damages must be limited to a token amount,…

Lawless v. Town of Freetown

While the amount of nominal damages is not limited to $1, “the nature of nominal damages compels [] that the…