Barry Hazle, Jr. v. Mitch Crofoot, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17663

Hazle, an atheist, was compelled to attend a religion-based 12-step program as a parole condition and objected; he was imprisoned for over 100 days after parole revocation.
Hazle sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment violations and sought damages; district court found liability but jury awarded zero damages.
Westcare, a SASCA, contracted with state facilities and allegedly placed Hazle in a religious program; Empire Recovery Center provided the program.
CDCR issued a directive after Inouye v. Hazle v. Crofoot, directing nonreligious referrals for objecting parolees; the district court treated this as mootness for injunctive relief.
The jury at trial found liability but awarded zero damages and the district court denied Hazle’s new-trial motion; on appeal, the court reverses and remands for new trial on damages and related issues.
Hazle seeks compensatory damages for loss of liberty and damages for emotional distress; the court clarifies liability, causation, and apportionment issues on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Damages for loss of liberty mandatory where actual injury proved	Hazle entitled to compensatory damages; injury undisputed	Philippine Nat’l/zero-damages stance permits zero damages	Yes; compensatory damages mandatory given actual injury
Waiver of objections to the zero-damages verdict	Kode governs; no waiver	Philippine Nat’l applies; waiver	Hazle did not waive; reversed
Liability apportionment vs joint and several liability	Should be joint and several; district court erred	Jury could apportion liability	Error; remand to resolve damages jointly and severally
Westcare proximate causation of Hazle’s injury	Westcare’s policy caused or contributed to injury	No proximate causation shown	Genuine issue of material fact; reverse summary judgment as to Westcare
Injunctive relief mootness post-directive	Directive not implemented; relief not moot	Directive moots claim	Remand for further injunctive-relief analysis; not moot based on record

Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007) (coerced religious participation violates First Amendment; clearly established law)
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1978) (nominal damages available when no actual injury proven)
Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1983) (compensatory damages mandatory when injury proven)
Philippine Nat’l Oil Co. v. Garrett Corp., 724 F.2d 806 (9th Cir. 1984) (zero-damages verdict not valid when actual injury indisputable)
Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004) (where injury indisputable, compensatory damages required)
Wilks v. Reyes, 5 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 1993) (improper denial of damages where injury proven)
Trobaugh v. Hall, 176 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999) (nominal damages insufficient for loss of liberty)
Schneider v. Cnty. of San Diego, 285 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2002) (nominal vs compensatory damages in civil-rights actions)
Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406 (9th Cir. 2010) (proximate causation: set in motion acts by others could cause injury)
White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) (official-change policy can moot but not always)
United States v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 520 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2008) (legal standards for apportionment of liability)
United States v. Hayashi, 282 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1960) (related to waiver/objection timing)
Rudelson v. United States, 602 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 1979) (joint and several liability principles)
Atlas, 93 U.S. 302 (1876) (joint liability principle)