Gale Lawrence Webb v. City of Tempe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GALE LAWRENCE WEBB,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF TEMPE,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-15749
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03136-DGC
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-15749
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 of 3 --

3 17-15749
granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --