Miller v. Albright
657 F.3d 733
8th Cir.2011Background
- Clayton Miller sued officers Albright and Cobb under the Fourth Amendment for unlawful entry, excessive force, and unlawful arrest, and under Missouri common law for malicious prosecution.
- A jury awarded Miller on the unlawful entry claim but awarded the other claims to the officers; no damages were awarded on Miller's unlawful entry claim.
- Miller asked the district court to direct the jury to award nominal damages after the verdict; the district court denied.
- Miller later moved under Rule 59(e) to amend the judgment to include nominal damages; the motion was denied.
- Miller contends the district court should have instructed nominal damages post-verdict and/or that the court should adopt a Rule 51 exception allowing post-verdict nominal damages on multiple-claim cases.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding no plain error and declining to adopt a Rule 51 exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nominal damages post-verdict | Miller argues nominal damages should be awarded after verdict. | Albright/Cobb contend no require post-verdict nominal damages without timely request. | No; district court did not err; no post-verdict nominal damages. |
| Waiver of objections to instructions | Miller asserts plain error should be found to award nominal damages despite lack of objection. | Defendants rely on waiver and the plain-error standard; no miscarriage of justice shown. | Waiver; no plain error affecting substantial rights. |
| Adopting a Rule 51 exception | Miller urges adoption of an exception allowing post-verdict nominal damages when multiple constitutional claims exist and one lacks damages. | Defendants oppose a new Rule 51 exception and argue existing rule applies. | Declined to adopt such an exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (nominal damages for procedural due process when no actual injury)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (nominal damages awarded when no actual injury proved)
- Risdal v. Halford, 209 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (nominal damages required for certain rights violations; First Amendment context)
- Westcott v. Crinklaw, 133 F.3d 658 (8th Cir. 1998) (nominal damages instruction inappropriate when there is proof of actual injury)
- Warren v. Fanning, 950 F.2d 1370 (8th Cir. 1991) (plain-error review for improper nominal damages instruction; proffered by plaintiff)
- Azimi v. Jordan's Meats, Inc., 456 F.3d 228 (1st Cir. 2006) (nominal damages post-verdict instruction to avoid tactical dilemma; not necessarily adopted nationwide)