FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

NOV 2 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DOYLE D. WALLS,

		Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES F. JARBOE, JR., Kearny County Sheriff’s Department, Lakin, Kansas; DENNIS JONES, District Attorney, Lakin, Kansas,

		Defendants-Appellees.	

No. 00-3053
(D.C. No. 99-CV-3318)
(D. Kan.)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, ANDERSON, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

	After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.  See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
	Plaintiff Doyle D. Walls appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
	Mr. Walls filed his § 1983 complaint pro se and in forma pauperis.  In his complaint, Mr. Walls alleged that his constitutional rights were violated during his incarceration by the Kearny County Sheriff, in Lakin, Kansas.  Mr. Walls sought damages for conditions of confinement which allegedly caused physical and mental anguish and which he alleged were imposed because of his non-guilty plea to domestic violence charges.  In a concise and well-reasoned order, the district court dismissed the complaint prior to service on the defendants.
	The district court determined that Mr. Walls’ claims against the district attorney were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity which protects prosecutors from § 1983 actions seeking damages based on their actions in prosecuting the cases of the state.  See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976); accord Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 908 (10th Cir. 2000).  The court dismissed Mr. Walls’ conspiracy claim as lacking in specific allegations of agreement or concerted action by defendants.  See Tonkovich v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 533 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Conclusory allegations of conspiracy are insufficient to state a valid § 1983 claim.”) (quotation omitted).
	In dismissing Mr. Walls’ Eighth Amendment claim of physical injury, the district court found the claim to be completely lacking in factual support.  Based on this finding, the court dismissed his claim of mental and emotional anguish as insufficient to state a claim.  See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (“No Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner . . . for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.”).  Finally, the court concluded that Mr. Walls’ claim that the defendants were responsible for his loss of employment was “simply malicious.”  Dist. Ct. Order at 4.
	Mr. Walls has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court.  After reviewing the affidavit and the other materials filed in support of his motion, we conclude that he has not demonstrated “a financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.”  DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).  Mr. Walls’ affidavit indicates that he is employed.  Therefore, we deny his request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, and order him to pay the full filing fee of $105.00 to the Clerk of the District Court for the District of Kansas, within twenty days of the date of this order.
	We have considered Mr. Walls’ arguments on appeal and reviewed the record.  We are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint.  Therefore, for substantially the same reasons stated in the district 

court’s February 7, 2000 order, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.  The mandate shall issue forthwith.

				Entered for the Court

				Bobby R. Baldock
				Circuit Judge