Willie James Glover v. Alabama Department of Corrections

Eleventh Circuit

Willie James Glover v. Alabama Department of Corrections

753 F.2d 1569, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28182

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 1985

Docket83-7122

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 753 F.2d 1569 (Willie James Glover v. Alabama Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willie James Glover v. Alabama Department of Corrections, 753 F.2d 1569, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28182 (11th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Judgment was ordered against Towns in his individual capacity since the Eleventh Amendment barred recovery for actions taken in his official capacity. Towns’ actions were taken, though, while he was on duty. Throughout the litigation and on appeal, Towns was represented by the Attorney General. Pursuant to the discretionary power of the court to award attorney’s fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988, the fact that damages were awarded against Towns in his individual capacity did not preclude the assessment of attorney’s fees against the State. See Williams v. Thomas, 692 F.2d 1032, 1039 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 103 S.Ct. 3115, 77 L.Ed.2d 1369 (1983).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED, and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Judgment was ordered against Towns in his individual capacity since the Eleventh Amendment barred recovery for actions taken in his official capacity. Towns’ actions were taken, though, while he was on duty. Throughout the litigation and on appeal, Towns was represented by the Attorney General. Pursuant to the discretionary power of the court to award attorney’s fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988, the fact that damages were awarded against Towns in his individual capacity did not preclude the assessment of attorney’s fees against the State. See Williams v. Thomas, 692 F.2d 1032, 1039 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 103 S.Ct. 3115, 77 L.Ed.2d 1369 (1983).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED, and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 26), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

753 F.2d 1569, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-james-glover-v-alabama-department-of-corrections-ca11-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack