Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03147/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03147-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Compart's Boar Store, Inc.
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3147

___________________________

Compart's Boar Store, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: June 14, 2016

 Filed: July 13, 2016

____________

Before MURPHY and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and PERRY, District Judge. 1

____________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

In 2011 Compart's Boar Store (Compart), a producer of breeding swine,

intended to export over three hundred pigs to China. China suspended all imports

from Compart, however, after it was notified by the United States government that

The HonorableCatherine D. Perry, UnitedStatesDistrict Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

Appellate Case: 15-3147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2016 Entry ID: 4425277 
the test results from a small set of the blood samples were "inconclusive" for Porcine

Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus (PRRSv). Compart subsequently

brought a negligence suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act

(FTCA). The district court dismissed Compart's action for lack of jurisdiction after 2

concluding that it fell within the FTCA's discretionary function exemption. Compart

appeals and we affirm. 

I.

The export of pigs to China is governed by the Quarantine and Health

Requirements of the People's Republic of China for Swine Exported from the United

States (China Protocol). Under the China Protocol the National Veterinary Services

Laboratories (NVSL) must test pigs prior to their export to China for PRRSv, a viral

disease which can cause pigs to have spontaneous abortions, pneumonia, lethargy,

and lack of appetite. NVSL is overseen by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service which is an agency of the USDA. 

NVSL tests pigsfor PRRSv using two immonufluorescent antibody (IFA) tests

and a virus isolation test. If the pigs pass the first IFA test they are isolated in a

quarantine facility for 30 days and tested again using another IFA test. Ten percent

of the quarantined pigs are also tested for PRRSv using a virus isolation test. NVSL's

procedure for virus isolation tests is set out in a document entitled Isolation of

Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) from Porcine

Specimens (hereinafter VISOP). 

This VISOP requires testing blood samples on two cell lines, known as SAM

and MARCcells. The cultures are then examined for cell damage over approximately

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District 2

of Minnesota.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2016 Entry ID: 4425277 
seven days. If no cell damage is observed, the cultures are frozen and thawed and the

process is repeated. If no cell damage is observed for a second time, the cultures are

stained and examined for fluorescence. The presence of fluorescence ordinarily

indicates the presence of PRRSv. The VISOP provides the following guidance for

interpreting the stained cultures:

If fluorescence is observed in any cultures inoculated with submitted

specimens, and is comparable to fluorescence observed in the positive

slides, and no fluorescence is observed in the negative controls, the

specimen is reported as positive for PRRS virus isolation. If no

fluorescence is observed in any but the positive control slides, the

specimens are considered negative for PRRS virus isolation.

The VISOP provides no guidance, however, on what action to take when the cultures

do not appear positive or negative. 

In 2011 Ag World International Corporation secured a contract to export pigs

to China. After Chinese buyers selected over three hundred of Compart's pigs to be

included in the shipment, the pigs underwent PRRSv testing. During the first IFA

test, all of Compart's pigs tested negative for PRRSv. They were then placed in a

quarantine facility where they passed a second IFA test. During the virus isolation

test, NVSL did not observe any cell damage in either the MARC or SAM cells. 

Nevertheless, a NVSL lab technician observed fluorescence in some of the stained

MARC cells. The fluorescence was unusual because it was not as bright as typical

positive slides and not as dark as typical negative slides. NVSL personnel then

conducted additional testing that yielded similar results. NVSL then issued a final

report stating that all PRRSv tests were negative with the exception of a few samples

whose results were "inconclusive." China subsequently suspended all swine imports

from Compart. 

Compart filed suit against the United States, alleging that NVSL was negligent

in testing its pigs for PRRSv and in reporting the results to China. The district court

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3147 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/13/2016 Entry ID: 4425277 
granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule

12(b)(1). The court concluded that the discretionary function exemption to the

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) barred Compart's claims. Compart appeals.

II.

We review de novo motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule

12(b)(1). Herden v. United States, 726 F.3d 1042, 1046 (8th Cir. 2013). The plaintiff

has the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction. Id. To determine our court's

jurisdiction, we may look outside the pleadings. Id. We review for clear error the

district court's "determination of disputed factual issues." Osborn v. United States,

918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir. 1990). 

Sovereign immunity shields the United States and its agenciesfrom suit absent

a waiver. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). Under the FTCA the United

States has consented to be sued in tort "in the same manner and to the same extent as

a private individual under like circumstances." 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The FTCA

contains numerous exceptions to this waiver of sovereign immunity, however. E.g.,

id. § 2680. If an exception applies, "the bar of sovereign immunity remains." Dolan

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481, 485 (2006). 

One exception is the discretionary function exemption, which deprives courts

of jurisdiction over any claim "based upon the exercise or performance or the failure

to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency

or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be

abused." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The purpose of the exception is to "prevent judicial

second-guessing of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social,

economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort." United

States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 323 (1991) (internal quotations omitted).

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3147 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/13/2016 Entry ID: 4425277 
The discretionary function exemption applies if two requirements are met. See

Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322–23 (1991). First, we must consider whether the suit

concerns "acts that are discretionary in nature, [that is] acts that involve an element

of judgment or choice." Id. at 322 (internal quotations omitted). Government

employees act with discretion unless they are following a regulation or policy that is

"mandatory and . . . clearly and specifically define[s] what the employees are

supposed to do." C.R.S. ex rel. D.B.S. v. United States, 11 F.3d 791, 799 (8th Cir.

1993). Second, we must determine whether the government acted or based its

decision "on considerations of public policy." Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 323 (internal

quotations omitted). When the first step is satisfied, we presume that the

governmental action involved considerations of public policy. Id. at 324. It is the

plaintiff's burden to rebut that presumption. Herden, 726 F.3d at 1048. 

The district court correctly concluded that the challenged governmental action

here was discretionary. Governmental action is discretionary when a governmental

policy "predominately uses permissive rather thanmandatorylanguage." Herden, 726

F.3d at 1047. Even when some provisions of a policy are mandatory, governmental

action remains discretionary if all of the challenged decisions involved "an element

of judgment or choice." Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th Cir. 2011)

(internal quotations omitted). In this case, the VISOP predominantly uses permissive

rather than mandatory language. For example, the VISOP offers NVSL scientists

ranges for the amount of blood to be used in the tests, the time for initial incubation,

and the length of thaw times for the frozen samples. Moreover, the VISOP does not

provide any guidance on how to interpret stained slides for fluorescence or what to

do if these slides appear inconclusive for PRRSv—the challenged decisions here.

Compart argues that our decision in McMichael v. United States, 751 F.2d 303

(8th Cir. 1985) compels the opposite conclusion. In that case, the plaintiffs claimed

that government inspectors failed to regularly perform a 51 step safety compliance

check. Id. at 307. We concluded that the safety compliance check was mandatory,

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-3147 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/13/2016 Entry ID: 4425277 
not discretionary, asit listed "a number of precise inspectionsto perform." Id. at 307. 

A rote 51 step inspection list is not analogous to the VISOP which consisted of

mainly permissive guidelinesthat allowed NVSL personnel to use their judgment for

most testing and reporting decisions. 

The district court also correctly determined that Compart did not rebut the

presumption that NVSL PRRSv testing and reporting decisions was susceptible to

policy analysis. One of the hallmarks "of a decision susceptible to policy analysis is

one in which a federal employee must weigh or balance competing interests." 

Herden, 726 F.3d at 1050. The agency's decision here involved weighing several

competing interests when testing and reporting for the virus. Incorrectly reporting the

results as negative could have undermined China's confidence in the government's

PRRSv testing procedures. Yet incorrectly reporting the results as positive could

have resulted in harsh consequencesfor Compart and undermined United States pork

producers' confidence in NVSL. As the district court concluded, determining "what

to do in this sensitive situation plainly involved . . . considerations of public policy." 

Compart argues that the testing and reporting merely involved professional

scientific discretion, rather than considerations of public policy. It claims that this

case is similar to Lather v. Beadle County, 879 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1989), where the

plaintiff alleged that a government psychologist negligently evaluated him. In that

case we concluded that the psychologist's conduct did not involve considerations of

public policy because the treatment was "professional [and] nongovernmental." Id.

at 368. Compart's reliance on Lather is misplaced. There, the psychologist had a

"singular goal, i.e., providing appropriate medical care to a patient" and was not faced

with weighing competing interests like NVSL wasrequired to do here. See Herden,

726 F.3d at 1051 (distinguishing Lather). 

Since NVSL's testing and reporting of Compart's swine was governed by

discretionary governmental procedures and susceptible to policy analysis, the

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-3147 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/13/2016 Entry ID: 4425277 
discretionary function exemption precludes jurisdiction over Compart's negligence

claims. 

III.

For these reasons we affirm the district court's dismissal of this action.

______________________________

-7-

Appellate Case: 15-3147 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/13/2016 Entry ID: 4425277