for want of parties who may not be joined. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That the Eastern Shoshone Tribe’s Motion to Dismiss it as a party (Doc. No. 90) is GRANTED; 2. That the United States’ Motion to be Dismissed as a Third-Party Defendant (Doc. No. 93) is GRANTED; 3. That State Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 96) is GRANTED; 4. That Defendant Harnsberger’s Renewal of Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 100) is GRANTED; 5. That all outstanding motions not addressed in this order are DENIED AS MOOT. 1 . The United States has not indicated which Rule 12 defense forms the basis for this motion. It is reasonable to conclude that the United States raises sovereign immunity as a defense to subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12( 3d 506, 514— 16 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The Complaint was not amended to reflect
holding that tribe may not assert its treatybased fishing rights under section 1983 holding that the tribe was a person within the meaning of  1983 when seeking vindication for the deprivation of a treatybased usufructuary right holding that claim brought under section 1983 of the civil rights act constituted a personal injury tort claim because section 1983 confers a general remedy for injuries to personal rights holding that a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party holding that the plaintiff tribe was not a person who could sue under section 1983 to vindicate sovereign rights namely a claimed immunity from the state court process