Edward A. Ganey v. Ralph D. Edwards Walter L. Kautzky, Sam P. Garrison Charles E. Smith Daniel G. Durham
759 F.2d 337
4th Cir.
1985
Check Treatment

*1 GANEY, Appellant, A. Edward EDWARDS; L. Kautz-

Rаlph Walter D. Smith; Garrison; E. ky, Charles P. Sam Durham, Appellees. Daniel G.

No. 84-6156. Appeals, States Court of

United

Fourth Circuit.

Argued Dec. April

Decided Dannelly In- D. and Donald S.

William (Moore, graham, Raleigh, N.C. Van Allen & N.C., brief), Allen, Raleigh, appel- on for lant. Edmisten, Gen., Atty. Raleigh, L.

Rufus (Jacob Safron, Sp. Deputy Atty. L. N.C. N.C., brief), Gen., Raleigh, appellees. on Winter, Judge, con- Harrison L. Chief part curred in and dissented WINTER, Judge, Before Chief opinion. SNEEDEN, Judges. HALL and Circuit

SNEEDEN, Judge. Circuit prisoner A. at North Edward Rаleigh, Central Prison in North Carolina Carolina, brought against an action various under 42 U.S.C. state officials on 1978. This case has ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‍appeal, this Court on been before Court, was remanded to District Jr., Dupree, presid- T. Honorable Franklin ing, hearing Ganey’s on claim that the had North Carolina defendants him of his *2 Edwards, damages. Ganey moved for library. 609 F.2d Ganey v. Cir.1979) notwithstanding (jnov) (4th (unpublished) the verdict on the slip op. at 1 curiam). judg claims were of and to amend the (per Ganey’s other issue summary judgment provide injunctive relief. The properly dismissed on ment to by Judge Dupree in given for the reasons Court denied both motions. Addi District Ganey tionally, his and order. See thаt the denial of jury memorandum the found (E.D.N.C. Sept. Edwards, adversely 78-184 No. had access 1978). Ganey’s ability pursue a state affected seeking to action in he court which was serving life sentence for the Ganey is a custody of his son. Garrison moved retain wife, Ganey, Cynthia who murder of his issue, jnov on this and the District Originally, Ganey was a schoolteacher. granted the motion. Garrison does Court repre- and proceeded pauperis in forma appeal portion the of the verdict find but, himself; after the case was sented Ganey ing that he had access to the denied Court, Ganey the District remanded to library. main issues are addrеssed on Two assigned court-appointed counsel. appeal: Did the District Court err this remand, the sole issue was On entering jnov awarding Ganey the state officials had de whether damages? in nominal Was the District of the constitutional of prived Ganey equitable in denying correct the re courts. It is well- meaningful aсcess to the Ganey requested? that the lief We find granted prisoner settled that a must be District Court did not err and affirm the as of his access to a law judgment.1 See, petition e.g., courts. Bounds v. Ganey denied At the time access Smith, library, he was involved as a (State prisons pro must L.Ed.2d 72 long-list or defendant of lawsuits. One libraries or with as vide inmates with law Ganey liti- of the lawsuits in which was a law.); persons trained in the sistance from gant Ganey, re was In Vance Hauck, (5th Cir.1980) Alfred Cruz v. (New County, N.C. CVD 1712 Hanover (Prisoners meaningful have access to must 1979). case, In Mr. and the In re Vance Leeke, courts.); Williams Sr., parents Brunjes, Mrs. Alfred W. of Cir.1978) (Hall, J., (4th dissenting) Ganey had Cynthia whom shot (Prisoners granted must bе more than for killed, sought Ganey’s paren- to terminate intervals to conduct ty-five minute rights. grandparents The maternal had tal library). research providing support care and to Vance been five-day jury A trial was held after the 2, 1979, Ganey. Alfred On March jury remanded. The found that case was judg- North Carolina state cоurt entered a Garrison, the Defendant Sam Warden terminating Ganey’s parental rights. Prison, North Carolina Central had denied substantial to show There was evidence Ganey adequate and access to Ganey that had been allowed to use the law library at Central Prison or to the law However, given library. he had nоt been adequate means of access to the other adequate an amount of time in the and March between courts litigating during the time he was that jury The also found that the two custody dispute. remaining defendants —Edwards properly that it Ganey’s rights. instructed Kautzky not violated —had 5$ in Ganey no actual or nom could award as little as dam- awarded accept argument mean we the State's light our decision not to reverse and does not always prisoner for an award of nominal dam- this case as a matter of law a remand ages relief, grant equitable ability do prejudiced or for a that he was in his show necessary to decide if the District Court find it prosecute particular claim when the defend jnov granting motion for Garrison. erred in prisoner has shown that the State him judgment, the District Court's Our affirmance library. meaningful access to the law or her of party, designates Ganey prevailing as the which ages.2 Ganey presented had some evidence 1983 claims in which a concerning the nominal trial costs he could offer no injury materials, copying legal incurred in but the nevertheless actionable and could not be jury nevertheless made a of no dismissed for failure to state a claim or damage.3 dismissed summary judgment before ruling trial on the merits. Our wаy Ganey argues *3 Carey holding, Carey Piphus, challenges Court held which en- § 1042, 247, (1978), 98 S.Ct. 55 L.Ed.2d 252 ables a 1983 claim to be actionable for § plaintiff prevails that a on a who damages any nominal showing without always claim must be awarded nominal injury. We conclude that once the damages of as a matter of law and $1.00 presented jury, issue is may to the it decide therefore the District Court’s denial of the to a zero sum award or some other small Garrison, jnov motion should be reversed. amount as nominal however, argues the amount of nom point any legal has failed to out damages inal is a of fact and the consequences that would make it damages jury’s finding of no need not be impose a nominal $1.00 award to agree latter reversed. We view finding liability. sustain the The jury’s and find that in this case an award of deprived Ganey that Garrison of his mandatory. nominal of access to a law and that v. Pi- In the landmark case of Ganey was entitled to no is not phus, the the Court established ambiguous. Thus, inconsistent or a new plaintiff compen- rule that for a to recover Furthermore, required. trial is not a find- satory or actual § ing liability on a 1983 claim need not violation, process he or she must offer supported by a monetary damage be 264, award injuries. 435 U.S. at prevailing party reap for the 98 S.Ct. at 55 L.Ed.2d at 265. The the Court, however, point having careful out benefits of won on the merits. A trial, ques- 2. At the was instructed on the cess to the law at Central Prison or to tion of as follows: adequate alternative means of access to the any courts at time between and Damages. you If find in favor of the 2, 1979? Marсh then, tiff, you award him will such actual or Answer: compensatory damages you as find from the defendant, (a) By Yes the Sam Garri- preponderance proxi- of the evidence were son? mately by caused the acts of the defendants in defendant, (b) By Ralph No Ed- denying plaintiff meaningful, adequate, and wards? may effective access to the courts. You con- defendant, (c) By No Walter L. any sider evidence that has been admitted in Kautzky? purpose setting this trial for the these dam- so, good 2. If did the defendants act in faith ages. specifically alleged Plaintiff has he has doing? in so photocopy- incurred in the form of Answer: ing mailing expenses litigation which (a) No Defendant Garrison he undertook that he would not have under- your "yes” adequate If answer to the first issue taken if he had received such access. defendant, you your plaintiff as to either If find that answer to the of his courts, second issue defendants, constitutional was "no” as to such defendant or any ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‍adequate, do not find that he suffered did the actual dam- denial of mean- ages, you may ingful then award him some minimal and effective access to the law damages, sum as such as five cents or at Central Prison or to alternative means of insignificant adequate some other sum. While such an adversеly access the courts affect damages may signif- award of plaintiffs not be defense of the action to termi- n icant, may greater be $1.00. than parental rights respect nate his child, Ganey, Vance Alfred in the enti- action jury’s 3. The verdict was as follows: Ganey. tled In re Vance Alfred We, jury, Answer: Yes answer the issues submitted to ’ any, us as follows: 4. What amount of if is the plaintiff, plaintiff Was Edward A. de- entitled to recover? adequate, nied and effective ac- Answer: None § may injury. 1983 action if, recover We therefore hold that § attorney’s fees remand, under U.S.C. 1988 and the District Court determines costs under Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of respondеnts’ suspensions from long Civil Procedure as as he or she is justified, respondents school were never- designated prevailing party. A mone theless will be entitled to recover nom- tary damage equitable award or relief is not to exceed one dollar not required or a defend before petitioners. from may ant 1983 suit be treated as the 266-67, 435 U.S. at 98 S.Ct. at purpose for the of award L.Ed.2d at 267. The in Carey, how ing costs and fees. See NAACP ever, expressly did not ques address the Center, Wilmington Medical presented tion in this case. In reversing (3rd Cir.1982), denied, cert. 460 Appeals Court of for the Seventh Cir 75 L.Ed.2d 930 cuit, the Court addressed the more difficult (1983) (Attorney’s fees be awarded to question of whether constitutional *4 parties ultimately who do not obtain the significance, are of such injury and actual sought litigation).4 whole relief in the prove, so difficult judge that a or Judgment in this case was entered in presume must damages that actual favor, Ganey’s spe- and the District Court plaintiff incurred once a has shown that the cifically jnov denied Garrison’s motion and deprived defendant him or her of a consti jury’s finding Ganey allowed the that Thus, right. tutional reading our of Carey access to the li- compel does not us to reverse the District brary Appellant’s Appendix to stand. at Court and enter an award of nominal dama 96. The District Court noted in its memo- ges.5 denying randum jnov Garrison’s motion appeal, On this we do not decide the Ganey had pending motion for costs constitutional issue of whether the courts fees before the District must damages award actual for violations Court. An award of in damages in $1.00 procеss rights, substantive due even this case is not in order for Ga- plaintiff when a has been prove unable to ney to be labelled the Carey, After this issue judgment for the order entered in his favor split among circuits; has caused a some Although to stand. damage nominal circuit courts first have found that Carey may value, award of symbolic $1.00 have procedural process limited to due Ganey has point signifi- failed to out the rights, they and then partic- have identified legal consequences result; cant that would process ular rights substantive due therefore, require will that the trial are so require fundamental as to automatic

judge add a nominal sum to the verdict. See, damage awards. e.g., Herrera v. ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‍Val- Ganey correctly points out that certain entine, (8th (Com- Cir.1981) 653 F.2d 1220 language in the Carey suggest case does pensatory damages are recoverable when damage that a nominal award is mandato- substantive constitutional are violat- ry. Court sаid: proof ed absent injury); of actual Brandon that the procedural Allen, 151, (6th believe denial of Cir.1983) v. 154 [W]e process (Actual due should be injury proven actionable need not plain- be damages proof nominal without of actual tiff compensatory damages recover determining question 4. The most critical factor of whether a must award $1.00 in degree of the award is amount of success nominal when it makes a Eckerhart, Hensley See obtained. 461 U.S. liability presented. on a § 1983 claim was not 1933, 424, (1984). 103 S.Ct. 76 L.Ed.2d 40 passing The Court did note in remand Therefore, award, course, the no should be awarded in nom- may the district affect court’s сalculations. proved if she a § 1983 violation making showing damage. without of actual Abel, Additionally, we do not find that Burt v. Id. at 616. (4th Cir.1978), precludes 585 F.2d 613 us from Abel, reaching specific result. In Burt v. right when to be free from use of excessive amend injunctive to include violated). But see Lan by police force relief. But I am of the view that an award Rodriguez, caster v. (10th of nominal mandatory is when Cir.) (per curiam), denied, cert. proven deprivation has of consti- 1136, 103 S.Ct. 77 L.Ed.2d 1373 right, tutional and that the jury should (Actual injury proven must be to recover have been so instructed. Therefore I re- compensatory prisoner’s when spectfully dissent from ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‍this of the Eighth substantive Amendment tо be majority’s decision. punishment free from cruel and unusual Piphus, Briscoe, violated); Familias Unidas v. (1978), S.Ct. 55 L.Ed.2d 252 the Su- (Actual (5th Cir.1980) injury F.2d 391 preme unequivocally stated that “the proven compensatory be to recover dam process denial of should be ages plaintiff’s when a First Amendment actionable for nominal without violatеd). rights have been Id. at injury.” justice system language at 1054. It followed this may or such a fundamental be that, direction even if on remand the however, process right; substantive due prove tiffs could arising from we do not reach this because the being process, denied due they “will be parties argued the is have briefed entitled tо recover not to argued sue. has not that because Id. exceed one dollar”. 98 S.Ct. at right infringed of the nature he was of. (emphasis added). The majority sug- automatically compensatory entitled to *5 gests in though he even was unable to expressly “did not question” address the prove light of the sub whether nominal mandаtory. are issue, dispute stantial on this we decline to language The major- the Court belies address this difficult issue without the as ity’s specifically assertion. The Court in- sistance of counsel.6 structed the district court Additionally, agree we Dis tiffs there “might would be entitled —not trict Court’s decision not to amend the be entitled” —to nominal оn re- injunctive to include relief. Ga they proved if mand a denial of constitu- ney has since to a different been moved right. tional The district court there could prison, and he has not shown that the State order, hardly ignore this direct nor should continuing deprive defendants are to him of we here where the has found that right librаry. of access to a law Ganey’s rights violated. Injunctive against relief the defendants is majority’s holding The also contradicts unnecessary to ensure that in the future In Burt precedent. earlier Fourth Circuit Ganey has library. access to a law Abel, v. (4 Cir.1978), we cor- forth, For the reasons set affirm the rectly interpreted Carey to mean that judgment of the District Court. other than nominal “damages, AFFIRMED. presumed are not every depri- to flow from Burt process.” vation WINTER, Judge, HARRISON L. Chief implication 616. The unavoidable of this concurring dissenting part: in in is that are statement agree majority presumed every deprivation. for I that the district such to Burt decisiоn then stated declining that, court committed no error absent arguing appeal. State has whether a this issue 6. The waived issue of on See v.Wolf McDonnell, prisoner’s constitutional to use a S.Ct. 94 41 litigating corpus (States habeas actions L.Ed.2d 935 limit access encompasses actions and civil prisoners filing to law to those habeas litigate have access to the a state civil corpus petitions). involving custody by briefing child claim damages, the district court “may” America, an award in Appellee, “shall”—not UNITED STATES —“enter plaintiffs favor of nominal not to Id. at 616. This state- one dollar.” exceed JACKSON, Floyd Appellant. Bernette рassing,” as the “note[d] majority suggests, specific in- No. 84-5049. to the district court. struction Appeals, United States Court of discerning further errs in majority Fourth Circuit. consequences require impos- no First, ing award. a nominal Argued Nov. recovery some cases such Decided qualify plaintiff as a awarding attorney’s purposes of fеes. See Galveston, City

Basiardanes v. Cir.1982); (5 F.2d Cook & Sobie-

ski, Actions, Rights 4.07 at 4-51 Civil U

(1984). prevailing party, litigant To be a sought some of the achieve benefit Eckerhart,

bringing Hensley suit. 1933, 1939, (1983). Awarding

L.Ed.2d 40 nominal dam-

ages prove insures that those who a consti- ‍‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‍deprivation designated prevail-

tutional are

ing parties they even if can obtain other

relief.

Second, failing recognize that the

must award nominal here as a

matter of law leaves the decision whether *6 jury’s

to award such un- discretion, unprincipled

bounded and since only “may” was instructed that it majority

award nominal

styles decision whether to make such fact,”

an “question award a

hard to fathom what “factual”

jurors deciding, or the would be standard

guiding majority their decision. The would seemingly

thus have the decide a triv- question, perhaps populari-

ial on the based

ty cause, might his availability

determine availability attorney’s fees,

fees.

and thus the vindication of constitutional

rights, jury’s arbitrary should not turn on a

whim.

I judg- would reverse the district court’s toas it to direct award

plaintiff a sum not in excess of $1.00. respects

all other I am satisfied to affirm.