Johnson v. Texas Workforce Cmsn

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11043
Conference Calendar
BARRY E. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:99-CV-66
--------------------
April 12, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Barry E. Johnson has filed an application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, following the
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of his
lawsuit asserting he was wrongfully denied unemployment benefits
by the Texas Workforce Commission and Commissioner Ron Lehman.
By moving for IFP, Johnson is challenging the district court’s
certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal
because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-11043
-2-
Johnson’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506
U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Ysleta Sur Pueblo v. Raney, ___ F.3d ___,
2000 WL 596, *3 (5th Cir. 2000); Daigle v. Gulf State Utilities
Co., Local Union Number 2286, 794 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. 1986).
His appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order certifying that
the appeal is not taken in good faith, we DENY the motion for
leave to appeal IFP, and we DISMISS Johnson’s appeal as
frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Johnson’s motion for a default judgment is DENIED.
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --