## Facts

- Mercedes Banks was arrested for suspected public intoxication in Emeryville, California, and placed in a police holding cell on October 31, 1982.
- A fire later occurred in the holding cell; Banks died, and investigators concluded the fire originated in the cell’s mattress, which contained highly flammable polyurethane.
- Banks’s heirs sued the City of Emeryville and police officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unsafe jail conditions and deficient supervision and safety procedures caused her death.
- The City defendants asserted Banks’s death was self-inflicted and filed a third-party complaint against entities involved in the design, manufacture, distribution, and sale of the mattress.
- The third-party complaint asserted one federal “general indemnification” claim under § 1983 and multiple state-law theories (including products liability, negligence, and warranty-based indemnity/contribution).
- Third-party defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), challenging (1) a § 1983 indemnity theory and (2) federal jurisdiction over the state-law third-party claims.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1983 provides a municipal defendant a substantive right to indemnification against private third parties allegedly responsible for a defective product involved in the alleged constitutional injury.
2. Whether the court could hear state-law indemnity/contribution claims against third-party mattress-related entities without an independent jurisdictional basis under ancillary jurisdiction in a Rule 14(a) impleader.

## Decision

- The court granted the Rule 12(c) motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court dismissed the third-party claim seeking indemnification under § 1983 for failure to state a claim because § 1983 does not create an indemnification right.
- The court held it could exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the state-law third-party claims because they arose from the same nucleus of operative fact as the § 1983 action.
- The court permitted the state-law claims to proceed as properly impleaded under Rule 14(a), noting impleader timing requirements are not jurisdictional and allowance rests in the court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1983 is a remedial statute and does not, by its text or history, create an implied right of indemnification or contribution among alleged tortfeasors.
- A third-party claim framed as indemnification under § 1983 fails absent explicit statutory authorization for indemnity.
- In third-party practice, a federal court may hear related state-law claims under ancillary jurisdiction when they arise from the same core operative facts as a claim within federal jurisdiction.
- Rule 14(a) impleader is discretionary; when third-party claims are tightly linked to the main action, a single proceeding may avoid duplicative litigation and inconsistent outcomes.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a municipal defendant’s attempt to obtain indemnification under § 1983 but allowed closely related state-law products-liability-based indemnity and contribution claims to proceed against third-party mattress-related entities under ancillary jurisdiction through Rule 14(a) impleader.


Banks v. City of Emeryville, 109 F.R.D. 535 (N.D. Cal. 1985)