Gary W., Etc. v. State of Louisiana, Etc., Dr. William Cherry, Sec'y of the Louisiana Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Gary W., Etc. v. State of Louisiana, Etc., Dr. William Cherry, Sec'y of the Louisiana Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
85 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 27 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott (txwd, 2024-06-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott
W.D. Tex. · 2024 · confidence medium
Given that Defendants maintain that they lack the ability to disburse these funds prior to the end of next year, it appears to the Court that “an order directing the responsible state official to satisfy the judgment out of state funds is the only reasonable way to ensure compliance with a valid federal judgment.” Gary W. v. State of La., 622 F.2d 804, 807 (5th Cir. 1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Haygood v. Dies
5th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
Insofar as the district court might have erred in deciding any of those questions, those errors were not “obvious.” Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Haygood’s Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider. 17 Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1007 (5th Cir. 1998). 18 Id. (quoting Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., 894 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir. 1990)). 19 See, e.g., Alvestad, 671 F.2d at 912 . 20 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th Cir. 1980)). 21 See id. at 913 (quoting Fackelman v. Bell, 564 F.2d 734, 736 (5th Cir. 1977)). 22 Alt…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans
E.D. La. · 2021 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805-06 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that a federal interest arose only after the Louisiana Legislature rejected two bills to authorize payment of the judgment).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arceneaux v. Klein Oak ISD
S.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Typically, a Rule 60(b) motion should not be used “to provide an avenue for challenges of mistakes of law that should ordinarily be raised by timely appeal.” Id. at 286 ; see also, In re Pettle, 410 F.3d 189, 191 (5th Cir. 2005) (“We have consistently held that the ‘relief under Rule 60(b) is considered an extraordinary remedy . . . ’” (quoting Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1007 (5th Cir. 1998))); Gary v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding that a challenge to the legal standard applied should have been raised via a direct appeal); Halliburton Energy S…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ray Jasper v. William Stephens, Director (2×)
5th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
(Higginbotham, J., concurring) (“I would affirm the district court’s rejection of the Rule 60 submission as untimely.”). “[E]ven if the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard . . . the proper way to challenge its ruling in the court of appeals is by appeal of its ruling, not by appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.” Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th 10 Case: 14-50245 Document: 00512565942 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/19/2014 No. 14-50245 c/w 14-70012 Cir. 1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) El-Tabech v. Clarke
8th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
That was the situation faced in the cases on which El-Tabech primarily relies, Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981), and Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268, 1270-71 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leola Bradshaw v. School Board of Broward Co.
11th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
VI, el. 2; Boiuman v. City of New Orleans, 914 F.2d 711, 712-13 (5th Cir. 1990); Arnold v. BLaST Intermediate Unit 17, 843 F.2d 122 , 126 (3d Cir.1988); Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 745-46 (9th Cir.1982); Collins v. Thomas, 649 F.2d 1203, 1206 (5th Cir. Unit A July 1981); Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Board of Com'rs of Stark Cty. v. Cape Stone Works
D. Mass. · 2002 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 744-5 (9th Cir.1982); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Markarian
1st Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir.1982); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aetna Casualty v. Rodco Autobody
1st Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Spain v. __________ _____ Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 1982); Gary W. v. _________ ________ Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Celsa Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, and Swiss Bank Corporation and Credit Suisse
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
It may, instead, pursue any remedy provided in Rule 69 or Rule 70 to enforce the award, including ordering state officials to pay the claim.”); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir.1980) (“ ‘[Wjhere a state expresses its unwillingness to comply with a valid judgment of a federal district court, the court may use any of the weapons generally at its disposal to ensure compliance.’ ”) (quoting Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268, 1271 (5th Cir.1980)), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981). *856 In sum, neither California law nor Rule 69(a) gave the …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Detroit v. City of Highland Park
E.D. Mich. · 1995 · confidence medium
United States v. Harkins Builders, Inc., 45 F.3d 830 , 832-33 (4th Cir.1995) (Rule 69(a) is not “inconsistent with the federal policy of affording judgment creditors the right to a writ of execution to enforce money judgments in federal courts”.); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Ruggiero, 994 F.2d 1221, 1227 (7th Cir.1993); Hankins v. Finnel, 964 F.2d 853, 860 (8th Cir.1992) (“Where state law fails to supply the necessary procedure, or actually stands in the way of enforcement, the district court may take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with its judgment”); Arnold, 843 F.2d at 128 ;…
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Freight System, Inc. v. Temperature Systems, Inc. (In Re American Freight System, Inc.)
Bankr. D. Kan. · 1994 · confidence medium
Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268, 1270-72 (5th Cir.1980); Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805-07 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Farmers State Bank v. Miner (In Re Monson)
Bankr. W.D. Mo. · 1988 · confidence medium
In re Snyder, 22 B.R. 29 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn.1982); Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir.1980); TNT Marketing, Inc., v. Agresti, 796 F.2d 276, 278, 279 (9th Cir.1986) (A court may invoke rule 70 sanctions on its own motion, in lieu of relief otherwise requested, provided that sufficient notice is given to the party against which sanctions are to be applied.) Rule 7070, and its counterpart, Rule 70, F.R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O'Grady v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human Services
E.D.N.Y · 1987 · confidence medium
As the Fifth Circuit stated in Gary W. in affirming a district court decision denying a Rule 60(b)(1) motion brought after the time for appeal had elapsed, “[E]ven if the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard when assessing attorney's fees, the proper way to challenge its ruling in the court of appeals is by appeal of its ruling, not by appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.” 622 F.2d at 805 (footnote and citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Godwin v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance
5th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Our decisions are uniform, moreover, in holding that rule 60(b) may not be used to challenge alleged mistakes of law, such as the one involved in this case; instead, these alleged mistakes should be raised by direct appeal. 12 E.g., Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A. v. United States, 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir.1984); Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F.2d 693, 695 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826 , 104 S.Ct. 98 , 78 L.Ed.2d 103 (1983); Alvestad v. Monsanto, 671 F.2d 908, 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1070 , 103 S.Ct. 489 , 74 L.Ed.2d 632 (1982); Gary W. v. State of Louisian…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Godwin v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation
5th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Our decisions are uniform, moreover, in holding that rule 60(b) may not be used to challenge alleged mistakes of law, such as the one involved in this case; instead, these alleged mistakes should be raised by direct appeal. 12 E.g., Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A. v. United States, 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir.1984); Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F.2d 693, 695 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826 , 104 S.Ct. 98 , 78 L.Ed.2d 103 (1983); Alvestad v. Monsanto, 671 F.2d 908, 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1070 , 103 S.Ct. 489 , 74 L.Ed.2d 632 (1982); Gary W. v. State of Louisian…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rayford v. Pryor, Jr. v. U.S. Postal Service
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp. S.A. v. United States, 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir.1984) (“a Rule 60(b) appeal may not be used as a substitute for the ordinary process of appeal ... particularly ... where, as here, a mistake of law is alleged as the primary ground of the appeal.”); Chick Kam Choo, 699 F.2d at 695 (mistake of law should have been urged on direct appeal, not by Rule 60(b) motion); Gary v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th Cir.1980) (application of improper legal standard should have been raised on direct appeal); 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berger v. Heckler
2d Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 746 (9th Cir.1982) (Rule 70 used to compel compliance with money judgment); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806-807 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981) (same); Rodriguez v. Swank, 496 F.2d 1110, 1111-12 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 885 , 95 S.Ct. 151 , 42 L.Ed.2d 125 (1974) (order issued setting out liability in damages to be incurred for noncompliance with prior injunction); Cole v. Hills, 396 F.Supp. 1235, 1238-39 (D.D.C.1975) (order issued requiring submission of plan for compliance with p…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berger v. Heckler
2d Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 746 (9th Cir.1982) (Rule 70 used to compel compliance with money judgment); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806-807 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981) (same); Rodriguez v. Swank, 496 F.2d 1110, 1111-12 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 885 , 95 S.Ct. 151 , 42 L.Ed.2d 125 (1974) (order issued setting out liability in damages to be incurred for noncompliance with prior injunction); Cole v. Hills, 396 F.Supp. 1235, 1238-39 (D.D.C.1975) (order issued requiring submission of plan for compliance with p…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frank Gibbs, Jr. v. Maxwell House, a Division of General Foods Corporation
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981); accord Alvestad v. Monsanto Co., 671 F.2d 908 (5th Cir. Unit A), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1070 , 103 S.Ct. 489 , 74 L.Ed.2d 632 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corporation
5th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
On appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion, appellants maintained that this denial was an abuse of discretion because the court had committed the “mistake” of applying the wrong legal standard. “[Ejven if the trial court had misapplied an incorrect legal standard when assessing legal fees,” we observed in affirming the denial, “the proper way to challenge its ruling in the court of appeals is by appeal of its ruling, not by appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.” 622 F.2d at 805 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mrs. Aage Lasse Alvestad, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Aage Lasse Alvestad and Their Minor Daughter v. Monsanto Company
5th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
On appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion, appellants maintained that this denial was an abuse of discretion because the court had committed the “mistake” of applying the wrong legal standard. “[EJven if the trial court had misapplied an incorrect legal standard when assessing legal fees,” we observed in affirming the denial, “the proper way to challenge its ruling in the court of appeals is by appeal of its ruling, not by appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.” 622 F.2d at 805 (footnote omitted). 4 *913 Similarly, in Fackelman v. Bell, 564 F.2d 734 (5th Cir.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. McKeithen
M.D. La. · 1980 · confidence medium
Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, supra. The Court, in the Gary W. case, concluded its opinion by stating that “an order directing the responsible state official to satisfy the judgment out of state funds is the only reasonable way to insure compliance with a valid federal judgment.” Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, supra at p. 807.
cited Cited "see" Waste Management of Louisiana, L.L.C. v. Jefferson Parish
E.D. La. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.1980); Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see" Timothy St. Fleur v. City of Fort Lauderdale
11th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gary W. v. State of La., 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th Cir.1980) (stating that proper way to raise issue of district court’s allegedly improper application of the law was by appeal of district court’s underlying ruling, not by appeal of denial of Rule 60(b) motion).
cited Cited "see" Comeaux v. Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc.
5th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gary v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.1980). 2.
discussed Cited "see" Ronald Hankins v. William C. Finnel, State of Missouri (2×)
8th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981); Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268, 1271-72 (5th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. 31.63 Acres of Land
10th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th Cir.1980) (“even if the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when assessing attorney’s fees, the proper way to challenge its ruling in the court of appeals is by appeal of its ruling, not by appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion”), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981); O’Grady v. Secretary of United States Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 661 F.Supp. 1030, 1034 (E.D.N.Y.1987) (“Purported deficiencies in the amount of and procedures for attorneys fee awards clearly do not constitute a cir…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. 31.63 Acres of Land
10th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th Cir.1980) ("even if the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when assessing attorney's fees, the proper way to challenge its ruling in the court of appeals is by appeal of its ruling, not by appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion"), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981); O'Grady v. Secretary of United States Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 661 F.Supp. 1030, 1034 (E.D.N.Y.1987) ("Purported deficiencies in the amount of and procedures for attorneys fee awards clearly do not constitute a circumstance or…
discussed Cited "see" Leonard L. Chilson v. Metropolitan Transit Authority (2×)
5th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gary W. v. Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804, 805 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981).
cited Cited "see" Preston v. Thompson
N.D. Ill. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
Id. at 1127 ; see Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d at 806-07 .
discussed Cited "see" Johnny L. Spain v. Louis Mountanos, and Kenneth Cory, Controller, of the State of California (2×)
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gary W. v. Louisana, 622 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981); Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268, 1271 (5th Cir. 1980); see also Gilbert v. Johnson, 490 F.2d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 1970) (approving use of Rule 70 to enforce back pay award against the Veterans Administration.) The Attorney General contends also that the order here is improper because it compels the Controller to act in violation of State law.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Specialty Healthcare Management, Inc. v. St. Mary Parish Hospital
5th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Gary W. v. Louisiana, 441 F.Supp. 1121, 1125-27 (E.D.La.1977), aff’d, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.1980). . 878 F.Supp. 87 (E.D.Mich.1995). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Martinolich v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co.
La. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Holding that the term "final judgment" in 12 U.S.C. § 91 is to be defined according to federal law, notwithstanding that it refers to a judgment in state court); see also Gary v. State of Louisiana, 441 F.Supp. 1121 (E.D.La.1977), aff'd, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed. 2d 193 (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Martinolich v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
La. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Holding that the term “final judgment” in 12 U.S.C. § 91 is to be defined according to federal law, notwithstanding that it refers to a judgment in state court); see also Gary v. State of Louisiana, 441 F.Supp. 1121 (E.D.La.1977), aff'd, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed. 2d 193 (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ca5 1983
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir.1980). 25 Reasoning from these principles, this court affirmed the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 994 , 101 S.Ct. 1695 , 68 L.Ed.2d 193 (1981).
GARY W., Etc. Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
STATE OF LOUISIANA, Etc. Et Al., Defendants, Dr. William Cherry, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources, Defendant-Appellant
77-3245.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 31, 1980.
622 F.2d 804
Carmack M. Blackmon, Thomas S. Halligan, Asst. Attys. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., Louis M. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant., William E. Rittenberg, Daniel Yohalem, Marian W. Edelman, Washington, D. C., Stephen P. Berzon, San Francisco, Cal, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Goldberg, Johnson, Hatchett.
Cited by 67 opinions  |  Published
GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge:

This class action litigation concerning mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, and other children from Louisiana who have been placed in Texas for care and treatment in institutions was commenced in 1974. Plaintiffs obtained relief ensuring adequate care and treatment for class members, see Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 437 F.Supp. 1209 (E.D.La.1976), and were held entitled to attorney’s fees under the Civil Rights Attorneys’ Fees Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 429 F.Supp. 711 (E.D. La.1977).

The judgment for attorney’s fees was not appealed, but the state defendants refused to accede to plaintiffs’ demands for payment. The plaintiffs then, on September 2, 1977, caused the clerk of the district court to issue a writ of fieri facias directing the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana to seize property of the Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources (“DHHR”) in order to satisfy the judgment. The defendants countered by moving to quash the writ of fieri facias on the ground that state law prohibits the seizure of public property to satisfy a judgment against the state or a state agency and by seeking relief from the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1).

After a hearing, the district court denied defendants’ motion for relief from judgment and issued an order based on Fed.R. Civ.P. 70 [1] directing defendant William Cherry, in his official capacity as Secretary of DHHR, to pay the judgment from DHHR funds. Defendants appeal from the court’s denial of their Rule 60(b) motion and from its order compelling payment of the judgment.

A. Rule 60(b) Motion. A ruling on a motion under Rule 60(b) will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. See Dugan v. United States, 521 F.2d 231, 233 (5th Cir. 1975); Hand v. United States, 441 F.2d 529, 531 (5th Cir. 1971). Appellants’ argument is that the trial court did not realize it had discretion to deny attorney’s fees when it originally ruled on the request for attorney’s fees and that its failure to exercise its discretion constituted “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” Brief for Appellants at 34. However, even if the trial court had applied an incorrect legal standard when assessing attorney’s fees, [2] the proper way to challenge its ruling in the court of appeals is by appeal of its ruling, not by appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. See Silk v. Sandoval, 435 F.2d 1266 (1st Cir. 1971). Therefore, the district court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motion is affirmed.

B. Order Compelling Payment. Appellants argue that federal courts lack power to ensure compliance with money judgments against states unless state law provides a means of enforcing such judgments. The Louisiana Constitution prohibits the payment of judgments against the state except from funds appropriated for that purpose by the legislature. [3] On two[*806] occasions bills were introduced in the Louisiana legislature which would have authorized payment of the judgment, but neither bill was passed. Appellants urge that the federal court can do nothing to ensure compliance with its judgment [4] because Fed.R. Civ.P. 69(a) [5] provides that procedures for enforcement of a judgment are to be carried out in accordance with state law and because Fed.R.Civ.P. 70 [6] does not provide an alternate means for executing a money judgment.

This argument has recently been addressed and rejected by this court in Gates v. Collier, 616 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir. 1980). Gates involved the enforcement of a money judgment for attorney’s fees in a civil rights action against the state of Mississippi. A Mississippi statute prohibits the satisfaction of any judgment against the state “except by an appropriation therefor by the legislature.” Miss.Code Ann. § 11-45-5 (1972). [7] The court said:

[Wjhere a state expresses its unwillingness to comply with a valid judgment of a federal district court, the court may use any of the weapons generally at its disposal to ensure compliance Only when the district court’s response to the recalcitrance of a litigant is so inappropriate under the circumstances as to amount to an abuse of discretion will the Court of Appeals intervene ... If statutory authority is needed for the court’s actions, it may be found in Fed.R. Civ.P. 70.

Gates, supra, 616 F.2d at 1271.

We perceive no relevant distinction [8] between Gates and the instant case. In both[*807] cases, an order directing the responsible state official to satisfy the judgment out of state funds is the only reasonable way to ensure compliance with a valid federal judgment.

Therefore, the decision of the district court is affirmed, and the case remanded for a determination of attorney’s fees for work performed on this appeal. See, e. g., Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d 741, 756 (5th Cir. 1977).

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

1

. The state defendants indicated to the trial court that they preferred an order under Rule 70 to one under Rule 69. The plaintiffs stated that they were indifferent between these choices.

2

. It did not, but followed our decision in Brown v. Culpepper, 559 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1977), which held that prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights actions should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. Id. at 277; see Christianburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412, 417, 98 S.Ct. 694, 698, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978).

3

. La.Const. art. XII, § 10(c) provides:

[*806] The legislature shall provide a procedure for suits against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision. It shall provide for the effect of a judgment, but no public property or public funds shall be subject to seizure. No judgment against the state, a state agency, or a political subdivision shall be exigible, payable, or paid except from funds appropriated therefor by the legislature or by the political subdivision against which judgment is rendered.
4

. At oral argument, appellants suggested that appellees might seek a contempt citation against the Louisiana legislature for failing to appropriate funds to satisfy the judgment. However, the Louisiana legislature is not a party to this action. Moreover, the chaos in the state appropriations process appellants predict if the court’s order is affirmed would be dwarfed by the disruption that would be caused by a contempt citation against the state legislature, if such a sanction is possible.

5

. Rule 69(a) states in relevant part:

Process to enforce a judgment for the payment of money shall be a writ of execution, unless the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution, in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of a judgment, and in proceedings on and in aid of execution shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which the district court is held, existing at the time the remedy is sought,- except that any statute of the United States governs to the extent that it is applicable.
6

. Rule 70 states in relevant part:

If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so done has like effect as if done by the party. The court may also in proper cases adjudge the party in contempt.
7

. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-45-5 (1972) provides:

A judgment or decree against the state shall not be satisfied except by an appropriation therefore by the legislature, and an execution shall not be issued against the state.
8

. Appellees suggest that Gates can be distinguished because the Mississippi statute, unlike the Louisiana constitutional provision, see n. 3 supra, does not expressly prohibit seizure of public funds. We see no relevance to this distinction, since the provisions in each state provide that a judgment against the state shall only be satisfied by an appropriation for that purpose by the state legislature. Also, the Mississippi statute prohibits the issuance of executions against the state. Therefore, Mississippi state property is not subject to seizure by writ of execution.

A second difference is that the Louisiana prohibition is contained in the state constitution, whereas the Mississippi prohibition is contained in a statute. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2, state constitutional provisions, as well as state statutes, must comport with federal law. Therefore, this distinction, too, is irrelevant to the rationale of Gates. See Gates, supra, 616 F.2d at 1272.