Case Name: Joe Billy TOLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. C.E. JONES (Warden) and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1992-01-27
Citations: 951 F.2d 1200
Docket Number: No. 88-7400
Parties: Joe Billy TOLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. C.E. JONES (Warden) and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and HILL , Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 951
Pages: 1200–1210

Head Matter:
Joe Billy TOLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. C.E. JONES (Warden) and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 88-7400.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 27, 1992.
Michael L. Waldman, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Stacey S. Houston, Asst. Atty. Gen., PCR Section, Montgomery, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and HILL , Senior Circuit Judge.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Hill elected to participate in this decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After this case was argued to the en banc court, the Supreme Court decided Coleman v. Thompson, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), holding that ineffective assistance of counsel in state collateral review proceedings could not constitute "cause" excusing a procedural default.
The issue that justified consideration of this case by the entire court has now been decided by the Supreme Court. The other issues in the case, while important to the litigants, are not issues of a kind justifying consideration by the court en banc. See 11th Cir.R. 35-3. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that the order that this case be reheard en banc, 905 F.2d 346, is RESCINDED and the panel opinion, 888 F.2d 95, is REINSTATED.