GALE WEBB V. CITY OF TEMPE, No. 17-15749 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GALE LAWRENCE WEBB, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15749 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03136-DGC v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF TEMPE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Gale Lawrence Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to join a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). required party, and review de novo the legal conclusions underlying that determination. Ward v. Apple Inc., 791 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Webb’s action for failure to join the State of Arizona because the State is a required party and subject to sovereign immunity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 (setting forth factors relevant to joinder of a required party); Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2012) (describing bases for concluding a party is required to join (citing Rule 19(a)); Paiute–Shoshone Indians of Bishop Cmty. of Bishop Colony, Cal. v. City of Los Angeles, 637 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Rule 19(b) requires . . . a practical examination of the circumstances to determine whether an action may proceed in equity and good conscience without the absent party.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)). We reject as unsupported by the record Webb’s contention that the district court violated due process by ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss prior to holding a case management conference. Webb’s request to submit this case on the briefs (Docket Entry No. 7) is 2 17-15749 granted. AFFIRMED. 3 17-15749
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
