[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10168 MAY 17, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 99-00012-CV-JEG-6
TONY GOODMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
O. T. RAY, et al.,
Defendants,
THE STATE OF GEORGIA,
Defendant-Appellee,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Intervenor.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 17, 2006)
Before CARNES, HULL and HILL, Circuit Judges.
ON REMAND FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:
This case is now before this Court on remand from the United States
Supreme Court as set forth in United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct.
877 (2006). The procedural history of this case is discussed at length in the
Supreme Court’s decision. Id. at ___, 126 S. Ct. at 879-80.
In light of the Supreme Court’s reversal of this Court’s final judgment in this
case, we vacate in full (1) our prior opinion in Goodman v. Ray, No. 02-10168
(11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2004); (2) the district court’s August 20, 1999 order dismissing
Goodman’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against all defendants and dismissing Goodman’s claims under Title II of the
ADA 1 against certain defendants but not as to other defendants; (3) the district
court’s March 16, 2000 order denying Goodman’s and the remaining defendants’
motions for summary judgment as to Goodman’s ADA claims; and (4) the
magistrate judge’s December 20, 2001 order granting summary judgment to the
remaining defendants as to Goodman’s ADA claims.
We remand this case to the district court with instructions to permit
Goodman to amend his complaint and then for further proceedings consistent with
1
See Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (the
“ADA”).
2
the Supreme Court’s decision. In his amended complaint, Goodman shall specify
in separate counts (1) what specific conduct he alleges violates the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) to what
extent the alleged conduct underlying Goodman’s constitutional claims also
violates Title II of the ADA; (3) what specific conduct, if any, allegedly violates
Title II of the ADA but does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
and (4) what named defendants are sued under § 1983, Title II of the ADA, or
both, and in what capacity each named defendant is sued (such as, whether
individually or in official capacity). See Georgia, 546 U.S. at ___, 126 S. Ct. at
882.2
After Goodman files his amended complaint in the district court, the
defendants shall be given a reasonable opportunity to file new motions to dismiss
or for summary judgment, which the district court in the first instance shall
adjudicate consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case.3
VACATED and REMANDED.
2
Goodman filed his complaints pro se and remained pro se until this Court appointed him
pro bono counsel on appeal. Counsel has advised this Court that counsel is willing to continue to
represent Goodman on remand in the district court, and thus the district court should enter an
appointment order on remand.
3
We do not express any opinion about the merits of Goodman’s claims or as to what
person or entity is the proper defendant on Goodman’s remaining claims. We leave all of those
issues to be decided by the district court in the first instance.
3