Unpublished Disposition, 855 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^**

Nadine Kimmons contends that the district court erred in dismissing her claim for failure to name the Administrator of the Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital as a defendant. This contention lacks merit.

The procedures for Title VII actions set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 apply to claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a) (1). A federal employee must file suit within thirty days after receiving notice of final agency action on the employee's claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). The proper party in such an action is the head of the department, agency or unit. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c); Koucky v. Department of Navy, 820 F.2d 300, 302 (9th Cir. 1987). If the complainant fails to name the proper party defendant in the caption of the complaint, the requirement is nevertheless met "where the administrative disposition of the discrimination complaint is attached to a complainant's timely filing." Rice v. Hamilton Air Force Base Commissary, 720 F.2d 1082, 1986 (9th Cir. 1983). This exception is only met, however, when the proper party is named in the attached administrative disposition. Hymen v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 799 F.2d 1421, 1422 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 1900 (1987). But see Cupp v. Veterans Admin. Hosp., 677 F. Supp. 1018, 1020-21 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (broadly reading Rice to permit an attached disposition to satisfy 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) when the proper party is not named but "sufficiently identified").

The proper party defendant in this action is the Administrator of the Veterans Hospital. It is undisputed that the caption of Kimmons' complaint named only the VA Hospital. The EEOC decision, which she attached to her complaint, names only the Veterans Administration as the appellee, and therefore does not cure the defect. See Hymen, 799 F.2d at 1422.

Therefore, Kimmons failed to name the proper party defendant and the district court did not err in dismissing the case.

AFFIRMED.