Civil Rights: Ninth Circuit Reverses District Judge’s Refusal To Award Fees And Costs In Nominal Jury Verdict Award Case

Tangible Benefit Was Produced—San Diego Police Department Encouraged to Train Officers to Avoid Excessive Force.

     The next decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is interesting. Though finding that the district judge got the law right, the majority in the decision still found that there was an abuse of discretion in refusing to award fees and costs to prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights case—although finding it to be a “close” issue.

     In Guy v. City of San Diego, Case No. 08-56024 (9th Cir. June 17, 2010) (for publication), plaintiff was awarded civil rights damages of $1 against one police officer in a case alleging the San Diego Police Department’s use of excessive force in a late-night confrontation with plaintiff in a fight outside a bar. (BLOG OBSERVATION—Seems like this is a recurring picture in the history of mankind.) The district judge denied plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs as a civil rights prevailing party under the proper federal fee shifting statute. Plaintiff appealed.

     He got a “split” verdict. The majority, written by Circuit Judge Gould, affirmed the damages award but reversed the refusal to award fees and costs. The dissent (Circuit Judge Rawlinson) did not reach the fee/costs issue, because he believed the jury verdict was irreconcilable with the evidence so that the damages award had to be reversed.

     The majority acknowledged that the plaintiff must demonstrate some tangible result, such as a change in policy, to justify a fee award, especially where only nominal damages were awarded. Here, the majority believed there was one—encouraging the SDPD to make sure police officers were trained to avoid use of excessive force (given that the jury’s verdict against one officer found excessive force was used in derogation of the no excessive force finding by the SDPD internal affairs division). The district judge applied the correct law, but abused discretion in application of the law—albeit deeming it a “close question.” Reversed and remanded for a determination of fees and costs.

Scroll to Top