## Facts

- Graydon R. Boles, a former University of South Florida (USF) student proceeding pro se, filed a federal action seeking money damages from Michael T. Gibbons, an assistant professor of political science at USF.
- Boles had been enrolled in Gibbons’s Spring 1988 “Introduction to Political Theory” course.
- Boles objected to a course reading assignment that he alleged contained profane language and claimed he was unlawfully required to read that language as part of the curriculum.
- Boles sued only Gibbons (not USF or the State of Florida) and sought retrospective monetary relief rather than prospective injunctive relief.
- USF’s president represented that Gibbons was acting within the scope of his employment when he assigned the reading material.
- USF promised to indemnify Gibbons for any liability arising from the assignment.
- The case came before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Gibbons’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the State of Florida was the real party in interest and that the Eleventh Amendment barred the damages claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal damages suit naming a state university professor, based on acts within the scope of his employment and backed by the university’s promise to indemnify him, is in substance a suit against the State of Florida barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
2. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, Boles identified specific facts showing a triable basis to proceed against Gibbons despite the Eleventh Amendment bar applicable when the state is the real party in interest.

## Decision

- The court granted Gibbons’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.
- The court concluded that, given the scope-of-employment representation and the indemnification commitment, the State of Florida was the real party in interest as to Boles’s request for money damages.
- Because the suit sought retrospective damages and Florida had not consented to be sued in federal court (and no valid congressional abrogation was shown), the Eleventh Amendment barred the claim.
- Applying Rule 56 and Celotex, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact that would prevent judgment for Gibbons on the immunity ground.

## Legal Principles

- A suit for money damages in federal court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment when the state is the real party in interest, even if the complaint names a state employee, where the challenged acts were within official duties and the state (or an arm of the state) will bear the financial consequences through indemnification or the equivalent.
- The Eleventh Amendment bar is directed at retrospective monetary relief; it is not avoided merely by naming an individual government employee instead of the state or a state agency.
- On summary judgment, once the moving party shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must respond with specific facts supported by materials in the record; conclusory allegations and reliance on the pleadings do not create a triable issue.

## Conclusion

The district court entered summary judgment for Professor Gibbons because the claim, though styled as a damages action against an individual professor, was effectively a damages suit against the State of Florida in light of USF’s scope-of-employment determination and indemnification promise, and such a suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.


Boles v. Gibbons, 694 F. Supp. 849 (1988)