Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02555/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02555-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2555

___________

David R. Sina; Candice M. Sina, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Frank T. Mabley, an individual; * District of Minnesota.

Greenstein, Mabley & Wall, LLC, a *

private business organization and * [UNPUBLISHED]

enterprise; Gordon W. Shumaker, an *

individual; Salvador Rosas, an *

individual; Bertrand Poritsky, an *

individual; Hyam Segell, an individual, *

Margaret Fuller Corneille, an *

individual; Carl Baer, an individual; *

Isabel Gomez, an individual; Richard *

H. Kyle, an individual; Frank B. *

Wilderson, Jr., an individual; Mary P. *

Walbran, an individual; Joseph R. *

Cade, an individual; John D. Kelly, an *

individual; Catherine M. Warrick, an *

individual; State Board of Law *

Examiners, a state agency and an *

enterprise, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2005 

Filed: September 1, 2005

___________

Appellate Case: 04-2555 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947055
1

 The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation in the District of Minnesota. 

-2-

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David and Candice Sina appeal following the district court’s1

 dismissal of their

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. For reversal, they argue that (1) the Minnesota Attorney

General lacked authority to represent the defendants who were state employees, and

that therefore the Sinas were entitled to a default judgment, (2) the district court erred

in granting defendant Frank T. Mabley’s amended motion to dismiss because the

motion was procedurally defective, and therefore the Sinas were entitled to a default

judgment, and (3) the district court should have allowed the Sinas to amend their

complaint, and should have granted their motion to strike defendants’ motions to

dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. 

The Minnesota Attorney General had authority to represent the state

defendants: even though they were sued in their individual capacities, the

complained-of acts were performed as state officials. See Minn. Stat. Ann. §§ 3.736

(state shall defend state employees from suits pertaining to acts or omissions taken

during their period of employment if employee was acting within scope of

employment); 8.06 (Attorney General shall act as attorney for state officials and state

boards in all matters pertaining to their official duties) (West 2005). Thus, there was

no basis for a default judgment. Similarly, there was no basis to enter default

judgment against Mabley, as his amended motion to dismiss was not improper or

procedurally prejudicial. Accordingly, the district court also did not err in denying

the Sinas’ motion to strike as frivolous. 

Appellate Case: 04-2555 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947055
-3-

Finally, although the Sinas argue that they should have been allowed to amend

their complaint to remove the law firm and the Board as defendants, they made no

motion to amend, and removal of these defendants would not have saved the

complaint from dismissal. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2555 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/01/2005 Entry ID: 1947055