Filed: May 27, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-1356 _ James E. Mooney, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. State of Minnesota, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 26, 1998 Filed: May 27, 1998 _ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. James E. Mooney appeals from the district court&s1 denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 98-1356 _ James E. Mooney, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. State of Minnesota, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 26, 1998 Filed: May 27, 1998 _ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. James E. Mooney appeals from the district court&s1 denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of h..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 98-1356
___________
James E. Mooney, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
State of Minnesota, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: May 26, 1998
Filed: May 27, 1998
___________
Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,
Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
James E. Mooney appeals from the district court&s1 denial of his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of his complaint prior to service pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Liberally construing Mr. Mooney&s complaint and
1
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable
Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
accepting his contention that he sued the Minnesota Department of Corrections and
state agents in their “official capacity,” we conclude his action requesting declaratory
relief for conduct that occurred over thirty-five years earlier was barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
506
U.S. 139, 146 (1993); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,
465 U.S. 89, 99-
100 (1984). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R.
47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-