“Straub seems to construe this holding as meaning that if his actions were taken as part of his job, then they were taken in his official capacity and that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies. . . . In light of Hafer, Straub’s statement of law is incorrect.”
How later courts described this case
- “Straub seems to construe this holding as meaning that if his actions were taken as part of his job, then they were taken in his official capacity and that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies. . . . In light of Hafer, Straub’s statement of law is incorrect.”
- explaining differences between official and individual capacity § 1983 suits
- discussing distinction between individual capacity and official capacity in context of Section 1983 and Eleventh Amendment
- suit against an official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the official's office
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WELLFORD, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in Judge Ryan’s careful analysis of the issues in this complex and long-extended case. I write separately, however, to emphasize that the single issue remanded — the claimed periodical involvement and wrongful classification decision affecting Hardin — is a very close question for me. This decision essentially was a committee decision, not a personal decision, by Straub. Unless Hardin can show that other committee members routinely deferred to Straub, effectually abandoned their individual decisionmaking responsibility as committee members, or that Straub wrongfully sought to influence them with some personal animus against Hardin, I would find no due process cause of action established against defendant Straub.