Eighth Circuit: Tom Magee v. Benjamin Harris

 

As the mail carrier's errand for a friend arose from a personal motive and wasn't fairly and naturally incident to his duties, the state law presumption of  acting within the scope of employment when driving a vehicle owned by the employer was sufficiently rebutted.  

Although there was no written policy forbidding it, the policies incorporate managerial directives, and the manager's testimony that such a break was forbidden sufficiently supports the court's determination that the detour was unauthorized.  

Driving to the store for a friend's dog food was of a sufficiently marked and decided character to take the mail carrier outside the scope of their employment.  Returning to the break place did not return the carrier to the scope of employment, as the employee must return to the point of deviation or to a place where he should be located inthe performance of his duties.  

Scope of employment is a threshold question under the act, and does not require jury determination as part of the merits.

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/202590P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: P.W. v. USA

 

Although a traumatic birth is insufficient to trigger the statute of limitations, the circumstances around the birth were sufficient to put a reasonable person on notice of the possibility of an actionable claim.

Federal tort claim act requires actual dismissal of intervening claim to trigger the statutory exception to the statute of limitations.

Statute of limitations not estopped by clinic's lack of explicit designation as a federally funded facility.

Equitable tolling unavailable, given publicly available database of federal health care providers.s

P.W. v.  USA

Third Circuit: Michael Rinaldi v. USA

For purposes of the review of exhaustion of remedies, prison administrative remedies are considered unavailable where administrators dissuade the inmate using serious threats of retaliation and bodily harm.

To establish unavailaibility, the inmate must show that the remedy was objectively out of reach to the average inmate and that he or she was actually deterred from using it.

Where a prison modifies procedure and the highest authority formally denies on the merits, the administrative remedy has been exhausted.

Housing and cellmate assignments are left to the discretionary judgment of the administrators, which bars a tort claim against the government under the FTCA exception to sovereign immunity.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/161080p.pdf

First Circuit: Soto-Cintron v. US

As the arresting officers' mistake was reasonable, given the message received on the radio, it would not have been actionable in a suit against the government -- as it was not actionable in that context, there is no private wrong to sound in tort.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1180P-01A.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Steven Morales v. USA

The government mapper's decision to omit the suspended cable from the map was sufficiently site-specific and informed by policy considerations to fall within the discretionary exception to the Act's waver of sovereign immunity; there is no exception to this exception in matters of public safety.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/13/17-15215.pdf

Third Circuit: Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA

Since the Act distinguishes officers from employees, the purpose of the Act is to circumscribe and define federal tort liability, and subsequent caselaw, only criminal law enforcement officers are within the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity; airport security officers are not within this group, as they merely perform administrative searches.

Dissent: Act unambiguously includes investigative officers; airport security are officers of the United States empowered to conduct searches for violations of federal law; these searches go far beyond the level of an administrative search.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/153047p.pdf

First Circuit: Hajdusek v. US

Although made at the operational level, the Marine training program instructor's decision to work a recruit to the point of permanent physical injury was a discretionary balancing of policy goals, and therefore not within the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Act.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2137P-01A.pdf

Fourth Circuit: Alan Metzgar v. KBR, Inc.

Suit against military contractor for trash burn pits and water provision is barred under the political question doctrine, given that the military's control over the processes at issue was plenary and actual.

As the suit is dismissed as nonjusticiable, the pendent FTCA suit is moot -- statutory exemption not reached.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171960.P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Stuart Wright v. United States of America

Local rules mandate that the reply brief to a motion for summary judgment must be in a certain form, not that it must contest all statements of fact not waived.

Under law of the case, basketball player falsely arrested justified the subsequent restraint on his liberty by briefly backing away from the police; this presents no issue for trial.

As the arrest and detention were justified, no abuse of process.

Arrest and tasing midcourt did not rise to the level of assault, as the officers thought that they were arresting a dangerous person.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/06/172274P.pdf

DC Circuit: Carlos Loumiet v. USA

FTCA, Bivvens, Statute of Limitations


Constitutionally defective exercises of discretion do not shield the government from suit under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.

The cumulative effect of continuing violations must be considered when considering when a claim under Bivvens accrues.


Carlos Loumiet v. USA

Eighth Circuit: Compart's Boar Store, Inc. v. United States

FTCA


Scientific testing with ambiguous results that required expert interpretation qualifies for the discretionary function exception to federal liability under the FTCA.


Compart's Boar Store, Inc.  v.  United States

Tenth Circuit: Nelson v. United States

Torts, FTCA

So long as the relevant acts of the landowner were purposeful, implicit invitation to use land for recreation can be imputed, even where the landowner subjectively believes the visitor to be a trespasser.

Willful or malicious conduct is best determined by the finder of fact, not on appeal.

Nelson v. United States

First Circuit: Paret-Ruiz v. US

Forfeiture, Takings

The statutory remedy is the sole remedy for challenging a civil forfeiture, even when the underlying criminal case doesn't result in conviction.  Waiver of that process waives FTCA remedy.

Court of Claim is sole venue for a Constitutional claim based in the taking -- amount in question here prevents court from having jurisdiction.

No clear error in denial of malicious prosecution clam, as evidence in record supports fact-finder's determination that one of the agents believed the deft to be guilty/


Paret-Ruiz v. US

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Aaron Thompson

FTCA SOL

Statute of limitations bars claims related to prenatal treatment and birth, as both accrued on or around the time of birth.

No equitable tolling, as the federal status of the clinic was discoverable.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-02/C:15-1868:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1696343:S:0

Fifth Circuit: Thomas Tubesing v. USA

FTCA

Although the specific harms are not outlined in the latter statute, plaintiff's standing under FTCA is displaed by the CSRA, given that the harms are specifically employment-related.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30347-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit: William Gibson, et al v. USA, et al

FTCA

Helping folks into and out of trailers is a garden-variety fucntion not susceptible to policy analysis, and therefore not subject to the discretionary conduct exception to the FTCA.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-31303-CV0.pdf

Fourth Circuit: Joshua Rich v. US

Prisons, FTCA.

As the decision to separate certain prisoners from each other is discretionary, yet implicates considerations of public policy, suit against officials is barred under FTCA.

Claims of inadequate or omitted searches of assailants should be remanded for discovery, as they implicate claims outside of the discretionary exception.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/147204.P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Dianne Khan v. USA

Posner - FTCA SOL.

A letter to a federal agency complaining about an action of the agency is not sufficient notice of claim under FTCA if there is no demand for compensation.

In assessing the window of opportunity for filing a tort claim against the federal government, the tort-specific limitations displace the general civil suit limitations.

Bivvens time-barred under incorporated state law.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D12-23/C:14-3292:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1676899:S:0