Although he introduced evidence of actual damages resulting from his excessive force claim, he did not introduce evidence of damages resulting from his unlawful entry claim. In that these two claims are separate and distinct, the damages resulting from the excessive force claim are not sufficient to show that Miller suffered damages as a result of the officers’ unlawful entry into his home. Therefore, the district court would not have erred if it had given a nominal damages instruction on Miller’s unlawful entry claim. Miller further points out that the First Circuit has held that “a plaintiff may request the judge to instruct the jury on nominal damages, or in the absence of such an instruction, may ask the trial court for nominal damages on the r. 2001) (unpublished opinion) (<HOLDING>); Salazaar v. Encinias, 242 F.3d 390 (10th
holding that the first amendment right to free speech is absolute and an award of nominal damages is required even if the defendant fails to object to the nominal damages instruction holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict holding that the plaintiff waived the issue of nominal damages by agreeing to the verdict form that instructed the jury to skip the damages issue if its answer to the causation question was no  holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a presumption of nominal damages when she had failed to request them