Holder v. Hamilton
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 30 Motion to Strike 28 Third Party Complaint; denying as moot 32 Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Jennifer B. Coffman on 1/3/12. cc:counsel (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-759-C
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
V.
PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID HAMILTON,
DEFENDANT.
**********
This matter is before the court on the Attorney General’s motion to strike
David Hamilton’s third-party complaint (R. 30) and on Hamilton’s motion to amend
his third-party complaint (R. 32). Because Hamilton’s third-party complaint asserts
a claim entirely separate and independent from that asserted by the Attorney
General against Hamilton, and because a finding that Hamilton is liable will not give
him a right to indemnification from the third-party defendants, the court will grant
the Attorney General’s motion and deny Hamilton’s motion.
The United States brought this action pursuant to the Freedom of Access to
Clinic Entrances (“FACE”) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248, alleging that Hamilton used force
against a volunteer clinic escort while protesting at the EMW Women’s Surgical
Center. Hamilton filed with his answer a third-party complaint against twenty-five
John Doe defendants, including the volunteer clinic escort on behalf of whom the
Attorney General has brought this action, other unknown counter-protesters, and
the entity supporting these counter-protesters and that entity’s employees. In his
third-party complaint, Hamilton asserts numerous claims against the John Doe
defendants, asserting that their actions constituted, among other things, assault,
harassment, and violation of his civil rights. In his motion to amend, Hamilton
seeks to add claims for indemnity, asserting that if he did violate the FACE Act,
such violation was intentionally induced by the John Doe defendants.
The court will strike Hamilton’s third-party complaint because it is an
improper attempt to implead individuals and entities not involved in this action, for
separate causes of action that have no bearing on Hamilton’s liability in this case,
merely because they arise out of the same occurrence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)
provides that “[a] defending party may, as a third-party plaintiff, serve a summons
and complaint on a nonparty who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim
against it.” Here, there is no set of facts that would make liability of the John Doe
defendants contingent on whether Hamilton is found to have violated the FACE
Act, and impleader is therefore improper. See American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Cooper
Tire & Rubber Co., 512 F.3d 800, 805 (6th Cir. 2008); see also 6 CHARLES ALAN
WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1446 (3d ed. 2011). Hamilton’s
allegations that the counter-protesters induced him to commit a violation of the
FACE Act are not grounds to find that they would be liable to him for any damages
levied against him as a result of the alleged violation because the substantive law
at issue, the FACE Act, provides no right to contribution or indemnity. See Tate v.
Frey, 735 F.2d 986, 989 (6th Cir. 1984). Likewise, Hamilton’s tort and civil rights
claims against the John Doe defendants are independent causes of action that are
legally irrelevant to the suit at hand. Rule 14(a) does not permit Hamilton to
2
ground a third-party complaint in the John Doe defendants’ independent actions,
even if they arose out of the same occurrence underlying the Attorney General’s
claim, in the absence of the John Doe defendants’ liability being contingent upon
Hamilton’s own. See American Zurich at 805. Therefore, as Hamilton’s third-party
complaint is improper under Rule 14(a), the court will strike the pleading upon the
Attorney General’s motion under Rule 14(a)(4), and Hamilton’s motion to amend is
therefore moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney General’s motion to strike (R. 30) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Hamilton’s motion to amend (R. 32) is
DENIED as moot.
Signed on January 3, 2012
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?