Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02050/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02050-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Raymond

L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2050

___________

Dean Benter, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

State of Iowa, Department of *

Transportation; Rhonda; Lois; State * [UNPUBLISHED]

of Minnesota; Minnesota License *

Office, La Crescent, MN and St. Paul, *

MN; City of La Crescent Police *

Department; Officer James H. *

Michalke, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 4, 2007

Filed: April 9, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dean Benter appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his action under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). Benter sued several states and state entities, and the

district court concluded that many of his claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment

Appellate Case: 06-2050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2007 Entry ID: 3296647
-2-

immunity, and that Benter otherwise failed to state a claim. Upon de novo review, see

Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of review),

we agree with the district court’s analysis, see P.R. Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 145-46 (1993) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits

for injunctive relief against states and their agencies); Pugh v. Alabama, 483 U.S. 781,

782 (1978) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states unless they have consented

to suit or Congress has validly abrogated their immunity); Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S.

105, 112-13 (1977) (no pre-termination hearing required when driver’s license denied

based on objective facts in record, such as traffic violations). As to Benter’s

contention that the district court should have granted him a default judgment because

defendants never answered his complaint, we note that the action was dismissed prior

to service, so defendants were not in default. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (authorizing

dismissal “at any time” for one of specified grounds); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)

(answer shall be filed within 20 days of service of complaint).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2007 Entry ID: 3296647