Sledge v. United States
723 F. Supp. 2d 87, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69494, 2010 WL 2745788 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant moves to dismiss a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) case based on the discretionary function exception, a court may permit limited jurisdictional discovery if the plaintiff's complaint alleges facts that, if developed, could establish that government employees either violated a mandatory directive or made discretionary judgments not grounded in public policy.
Facts:
- On October 15, 2002, inmate Rico Woodland was involved in an altercation with inmate Jesse L. Sparks at the Federal Correctional Institution-Allenwood in Pennsylvania.
- Later that same day, Woodland was attacked in his cell by Sparks and another inmate, Ishmael Ford-Bey, in a beating that allegedly lasted thirty minutes.
- Woodland sustained severe and permanent injuries, including brain damage, which left him in a coma for months and functionally quadraparetic.
- In March 2005, Woodland was transferred to the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri (USMC-Springfield).
- Woodland’s mother, Dianne Sledge, and sister received advance approval from USMC-Springfield employees to visit Woodland in November 2005.
- After traveling from Washington, D.C. to Springfield, Missouri, USMC-Springfield employees refused to allow Dianne Sledge and her daughter to see Woodland.
- A USMC-Springfield employee allegedly told the family that although she could arrange a visit, she would not do so.
- On January 29, 2006, Rico Woodland died in federal custody.
Procedural Posture:
- Dianne Sledge and Steven Sledge, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rico Woodland, filed an action against the United States of America in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint containing six counts, including claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and emotional distress.
- The United States filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Transfer.
- The motion argued for dismissal of four counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the discretionary function exception of the FTCA and for dismissal of all counts for failure to state a claim.
- The court held a hearing on the defendant's motion.
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 discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act require dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction before the plaintiffs have had an opportunity to conduct discovery into whether the challenged government actions were constrained by mandatory directives or were not based on public policy considerations?
Opinions:
Majority - Titus, J.
No. A court should not dismiss a complaint under the discretionary function exception before allowing plaintiffs the opportunity for limited discovery when facts essential to establishing jurisdiction are within the defendant's exclusive control. The Federal Tort Claims Act's (FTCA) discretionary function exception shields the government from lawsuits over policy-based decisions. To determine if the exception applies, the court uses the two-part test from United States v. Gaubert: (1) whether the challenged conduct involved an element of judgment or choice, and (2) if so, whether that judgment is of the kind that the exception was designed to shield (i.e., grounded in social, economic, or political policy). Here, the Plaintiffs cannot know without discovery whether Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employees violated any specific mandatory directives, which would negate the first prong. Similarly, discovery is needed to determine if the employees' actions, even if discretionary, were the type of decisions not grounded in public policy, such as a guard simply standing by during an attack out of laziness, which would fail the second prong. Dismissing the case before allowing plaintiffs a chance to uncover these facts, especially when the events occurred behind prison walls, would be premature.
Analysis:
This opinion reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges under the FTCA's discretionary function exception cannot always be resolved on the face of the pleadings. It highlights the importance of allowing limited jurisdictional discovery, particularly in cases where the relevant information about government policies and employee actions is exclusively held by the defendant, such as within the prison system. The decision prevents the government from using the exception as an insurmountable barrier at the motion-to-dismiss stage, ensuring that plaintiffs have a meaningful opportunity to establish the court's jurisdiction for potentially meritorious claims involving non-policy-based negligence.
