* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not

participating in this appeal. After examining appellant’s brief and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s

brief and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a); C IR

. R. 34(f). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 30, 2008 *

Decided November 6, 2008

Amended November 13, 2008

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 2205

BARRY J. SMITH,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin.

No. 08

‐ C

‐ 262

Rudolph T. Randa,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Barry Smith, a resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was disqualified from running for

alderman because of a prior conviction. Smith then tried to sue the United States and the NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 2205 Page 2

State of Wisconsin for damages because, he says, the law that prohibits him from appearing

on the ballot violates his rights under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution. Because Smith asked to proceed in forma

pauperis

, the district court screened his complaint before service of process. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1), (e)(2)(b)(ii); Rowe v. Shake

, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999). The court

dismissed the suit on the grounds that Smith fails to state an actionable claim and, in any

event, has sued the wrong parties.

We agree that Smith sued the wrong parties. The State of Wisconsin cannot be sued

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—as Smith tries to do—both because a state is not a “person” for

purposes of that statute, and because a suit against a state for money damages is barred by

the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Mich. Dept. of State Police

, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989); Porco

v. Trs. of Ind. Univ.

, 453 F.3d 390, 395 (7th Cir. 2006). And the United States is immune from

suit unless it consents to be sued. See Hercules, Inc. v. United States

, 516 U.S. 417, 422 (1996);

Parrott v. United States

, 536 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2008). Smith points to no statute where

the United States has waived its immunity for these claims.

Instead, Smith purports to correct the defects in his complaint by attaching to his

appellate brief a proposed amended complaint naming the City of Milwaukee as a

defendant. Smith argues that he should be allowed to amend his complaint, but he never

tried to do so in the district court. We will not entertain arguments raised for the first time

on appeal. In re Willett

, No. 07

‐ 1850, 2008 WL 4182649, at *4 n.5 (7th Cir., Sept. 12, 2008);

Domka v. Portage County, Wis

., 523 F.3d 776, 784 (7th Cir. 2008). Nor may Smith amend his

complaint on appeal. See Holman v. Indiana

, 211 F.3d 399, 406 (7th Cir. 2000); Hamlin v.

Vaudenberg

, 95 F.3d 580, 583

‐ 84 (7th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.