other words, the State argues, because “[t]he United States merely has the equitable ability under the law of apportionment to assert that the first-party plaintiff has a claim against the third-party defendant,” the United States is “attempting to act as a conduit for [Pjlaintiff s claim against the State” and thereby avoid the Eleventh Amendment. The key to the State’s argument is the absence of a duty under Alaska law between a defendant/third-party plaintiff and a third-party defendant. For other third-party claims, such as contribution and indemnity, in which such a duty does exist, this court and others have held that the Eleventh Amendment does not immunize a state from a third-party claim in federal court. See, e.g., United States v. Hawaii, 832 F.2d 1116, 1117 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Barrett v. United States, 853 F.2d 124,
holding that  1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state holding that  1983 does not override states eleventh amendment immunity holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state holding that the eleventh amendment does not prohibit the united states from prosecuting a claim of contribution