Shuler v. United States
531 F.3d 930, 382 U.S. App. D.C. 201, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14907 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The United States is immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for claims based on the exercise of a discretionary function, which encompasses government decisions involving public policy judgment, even if that discretion is allegedly abused or a generalized promise of protection is made.
Facts:
- In the winter of 1999, Charles Shuler, a confidential informant, provided information to the FBI regarding the whereabouts of reputed drug-trafficking boss Kevin Gray.
- Shuler requested that Gray not be arrested immediately, expressing fear that such an action would compromise his identity.
- Immediately after receiving Shuler’s information, the FBI arrested Kevin Gray.
- Following Gray's arrest, the FBI instructed Shuler to continue his investigation into Gray's drug activities.
- Shuler initially refused due to safety concerns but agreed to continue after an FBI agent assured him that the FBI would protect him.
- On December 15, 1999, two weeks after Gray's arrest, Shuler was shot in the back, resulting in permanent paralysis.
- Shuler believed that the FBI’s prompt arrest blew his cover and prompted Gray to order his murder.
Procedural Posture:
- In December 2001, Charles Shuler filed an administrative claim for damages with the Department of Justice.
- The Department of Justice denied Shuler’s administrative claim.
- Shuler then filed suit against the United States in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The United States moved to dismiss Shuler’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that his claim fell within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.
- The District Court agreed with the government, dismissing Shuler’s claim.
- The District Court subsequently denied Shuler’s motion to alter or amend the judgment.
- Shuler appealed both the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception immunize the United States from liability for a confidential informant's injury when the alleged negligence involves government decisions about the timing of an arrest and the method of informant protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffith, Circuit Judge
No, the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary function exception immunizes the United States from liability for Shuler’s injury, as the government’s decisions regarding the timing of an arrest and the method of informant protection involve public policy judgments falling squarely within that exception. The court affirmed the dismissal, explaining that the United States generally enjoys sovereign immunity from suit, which the FTCA waives only under specific circumstances, explicitly excluding claims based on the performance or failure to perform a discretionary function or duty, 'whether or not the discretion involved be abused' (28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)). The court applied the two-part Berkovitz test: (1) whether a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow, and (2) if not, whether the challenged action involves the permissible exercise of policy judgment. Shuler failed to identify any specific policy governing the timing of arrests or the method of informant protection. The court found that decisions concerning the timing of arrests are inherently discretionary and 'rife with considerations of public policy,' aimed at preventing judicial 'second-guessing' of administrative decisions. Similarly, decisions about whether and how to protect a confidential informant involve significant policy judgments, balancing the informant's needs, resource allocation, and broader law enforcement objectives. The court rejected Shuler’s argument that a generalized promise of protection created a duty actionable under the FTCA, clarifying that even an explicit promise for specific protection would only remove the act from the exception if its breach were 'devoid of considerations of public policy.' A government agent retains discretion to alter protection based on policy, and the exception covers even abuses of discretion.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad reach of the discretionary function exception under the FTCA, particularly within the context of law enforcement and informant handling. It establishes that decisions related to criminal apprehension timing and informant protection are generally shielded from tort liability due to their inherent connection to public policy judgments. The ruling makes it exceptionally challenging for individuals to sue the government for injuries stemming from such operations, emphasizing judicial deference to executive branch policymaking and minimizing judicial 'second-guessing' of complex governmental decisions.
