Megan Krainski v. Rebecca Mill , 356 F. App'x 951 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 14 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MEGAN KRAINSKI,                                  No. 08-17682
    Plaintiff,                        D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00417-JCM-
    GWF
    v.
    REBECCA MILL; RICHARD CLARK;                     MEMORANDUM *
    PHILLIP BURNS; NANNETTE
    JIMINEZ; SUSAN CARRASCO; TYREE
    PINI; LESLIE WALLENFELDT; BRETT
    GOFF; L. TRAMPOSCH; J. CULVER,
    Defendants,
    v.
    KENYA POLEE,
    Defendant-third-party-plaintiff
    - Appellant,
    v.
    YVONNE SCOTT-WILLIAMS,
    Third-party-defendant -
    Appellee,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    STATE OF NEVADA EX. REL. BOARD
    OF REGENTS OF THE NEVADA
    SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION, on
    behalf of University of Nevada, Las
    Vegas,
    Defendant-third-party-
    defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 3, 2009 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Kenya Polee appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her third-party
    complaint. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and
    procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here.
    I
    The district court did not err in rejecting Polee’s attempt to implead a third
    party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a), a decision that we review
    for abuse of discretion. Brockman v. Merabank, 
    40 F.3d 1013
    , 1016 (9th Cir.
    **
    Per the request of counsel, this appeal was submitted on the briefs.
    See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    -2-
    1994). Rule 14(a) authorizes impleader of a third-party defendant only when the
    “defendant is attempting to transfer to the third-party defendant the liability
    asserted against him by the original plaintiff.” Stewart v. Am. Int'l Oil & Gas Co.,
    
    845 F.2d 196
    , 200 (9th Cir. 1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Impleader is inappropriate, where, as here, “the alleged third-party claim [merely]
    arises from the same transaction or set of facts as the original claim.” 
    Id.
     (quotation
    marks and citation omitted).
    II
    The district court also properly dismissed the suit against the State of
    Nevada and state entity defendants because the defendants enjoy immunity from
    suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. Yakama Indian Nation v.
    Wash. Dep't of Revenue, 
    176 F.3d 1241
    , 1245 (9th Cir. 1999). “The Eleventh
    Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of relief, absent
    unequivocal consent by the state.” Romano v. Bible, 
    169 F.3d 1182
    , 1185 (9th Cir.
    1999). Because the University is a state entity, the district court correctly
    determined that the Eleventh Amendment barred Polee's cross-claims against the
    University for both monetary and injunctive relief.
    AFFIRMED.
    -3-