Robert E. Garcia v. Michael Falk, et al.

This Court has explained that “nominal damages * * * are the appropriate means of ‘vindicating’ rights whose deprivation has not caused actual, provable injury.” Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308 n.11 (1986); see also Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978) (“Because the right to procedural due process is ‘absolute’ in the sense that it does not depend upon the merits of a claimant’s substantive assertions, and because of the importance to organized society that procedural due process be observed, we believe that the denial of procedural due process should be actionable for nominal damages without proof of actual injury.” (internal citations omitted)). The question presented is: Whether it is an error of law to dismiss a constitutional claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to establish a compensable injury. (i)