ALFRED FLOWERS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
C. PAUL PHELPS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, V. NORMAN JOHNSON, DAVID BLAYLOCK AND ROBERT MCBRIDE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CROSS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court vacated part of its prior opinion and substituted new text, denying rehearing and rehearing en banc.
Defendants argued the Eleventh Amendment barred adjudication of state law claims and money damages. The district court had entered judgment for the pl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State Law Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
We vacate part IID of our opinion in Flowers v. Phelps, 956 F. 2d 488 (5th Cir.1992), and substitute the following therefor:
The defendants argue that the Eleventh Amendment barred the district court from adjudicating Flowers’ state law claim or awarding money damages. The defendants point out that Louisiana provides indemnity to state officials from damages and costs arising out of suits for negligence or other acts committed within the scope of the official’s employment. La. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:5108.1 and 13:5108.2. Section 13:5108.1(A) provides immunity from suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1983, and § 13:5108.2(B) provides indemnity for “any claim, demand, suit, or judgment in any court.” 1
The district court entered judgment in favor of Flowers on both federal and state law claims. Only the $3,000 award for actual damages pertains to both claims; the $25,000 punitive damages award pertains to the federal claim only. Because we affirm the district court’s judgment on Flower’s federal claim, that claim supports the actual damages award.2 As a result, we need not consider whether the Eleventh Amendment barred the district court from considering Flowers’ state law claims. The Petition for Rehearing is 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 (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
. Both sections also provide that no such indemnity shall be paid if the damages result from “the intentional wrongful act or gross negligence” of the state official. La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:5108.1(A) and 13:5108.2(B).
. Since Flowers sued the defendants in their individual capacities for violation of his constitutional rights, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar his federal claim. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 237-38, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686-87, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Frazier v. King, 873 F. 2d 820, 827 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Davoli v. Frazier, 493 U.S. 977, 110 S.Ct. 502, 107 L.Ed.2d 504 (1989). The existence of a state immunity statute does not render these individuals immune from federal suit. Benning v. Board of Regents of Regency Univs., 928 F. 2d 775, 778-79 (7th Cir.1991); Blaylock v. Schwinden, 862 F. 2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir.1988); Downing v. Williams, 624 F. 2d 612, 626 (5th Cir.1980), vacated on other grounds, 645 F. 2d 1226 (5th Cir.1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1974)
- Downing v. Williams, 624 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1980)
- Downing v. Williams, 645 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Blaylock v. Schwinden, 856 F.2d 107 (9th Cir. 1988)
- Frazier v. King, 873 F.2d 820 (5th Cir. 1989)
- Benning v. Bd. OF Regents OF Regency Univs., 928 F.2d 775 (7th Cir. 1991)
- Davoli v. Frazier, 493 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1989)
- Cantrell et vir v. Buchanan, 493 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1989)
- Flowers v. Phelps, 956 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1992)