## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t7,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT

ESTATE OF KEN NETH M I CH AEL T RE NT ADUE ; CA RMEN AGUI L AR TREN TAD UE; W I LM A LO U TR ENTA DU E; ESTATE OF J ESS E J AM ES TRENTA DU E; DO NN A TR ENTA DU E SW EENEY ; LEE FRE D ER I CK TR EN TA D U E; a nd J ESSE CA RL TREN TAD UE, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ees, v. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; DE P AR T M E NT OF J US T I CE ; F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF P RI S ONS ; a n d F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF I NVE S T I GAT I ON, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants .

_____________________________________ ESTATE OF KEN NETH M I CH AEL TREN TAD UE, Pl ai nt i ff, C A R ME N A G U I L A R T R E N T A D U E ; W I L MA LO U TR EN TA D U E; ESTA TE O F J ESSE J AM E S T RE NT ADUE ; DONNA TRE NTADUE S W EE NEY; LE E F REDE RI CK TRE NTADUE; a n d J ES S E CARL TREN TAD UE, P l ai nti ffs - C ross -A pp el l ants , v. N os . 05- 6406 & 06- 6011 ( D. C. No. CI V 97 - 8 4 9 - L) (W . D is t. O k la .)This order and judgment is not bi nding prece dent, except underthe doctrine s of * l aw o f th e c a s e , r e s j u di c at a , an d c o l l at e r a l e s t o p p e l . It m a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

- 2- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; DE P AR T M E NT OF J US T I CE ; F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF P RI S ONS ; a n d F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF I NVE S T I GAT I ON, D efen dan t s - C ross -A pp el l ees.



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , S EY M OUR , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. T he U ni t ed St at es appea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on on r emand fi ndi ng that fa m il ym em b ers (the F am il y ) of K en n eth T ren tadu e su ffere d sev ere emot i onal di s t r es s and r ei ns t at i ng an aw ar d of $1. 1 m i l l i on i n damages undert he F e d e ra l T o rt C la im s A c t ( F T C A ) fo r i n te n tio n a l in flic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . T he Fami l ycr os s - appea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of thei rr eques tt o m ove for d ism issal of

a c o ll ateral claim w ith o u t prejud ice. W e re m an d to the d istri ct co u rt forfur t herfi ndi ngs as t o t he fourth pr ong of the t es tfori nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of em o ti o n al distr ess, an d w e a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f th e F am il y ’s M ot i on forD i s m i s s al W i t houtPr ej udi ce of J es s e C . T r ent adue’ s Sever ed C l ai m of Em o t i o n a l Di s t r e s s Ba s e d Up o n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s ’ Effo r t s t o I n d i c tHi m. T h is liti g a tio n o rig in a tes a s a re su lt o f th e u n fo rtu n a te d e a th o f K e n n e thThe district court awarded Mr. Trentadue ’s wife$250,000, his mother, 1 sister, and two brothers $200,000 each, and his father’s e state $50,000.

- 3- T r ent adue w hi l e i n fede r al cus t odyi n O kl ahoma. T he part i es and the di s tr i ct c o u rt a re f

u lly a w a re o f

th e fa c tu a l p re d ic a te o f th is c a s e , s ee Es tat e of Tre ntadue ex r el . A gui l arv. Uni t ed Stat es , 3 9 7 F . 3 d 8 4 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( Tre ntadue I). In s hor t , r el at i ves of M r . T r ent adue br oughta cl ai m fori nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of e m o tio n a l d istre ss u n d e r th e F T C A . T h e d istric t co u rt e v a lu a ted th e c laim pur s uantt o O kl ahoma st at e t or tl aw . T o pr ove i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s i n O kl ahoma, t he pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e that“( 1) the defendantact ed i nt ent i onal l yorr eckl es s l y ; ( 2) t he defendant ’ s conductw as extr eme and ou t rageou s; (3) t he d efen dan t ’s con du ctcaused the p l ai nti ff em oti on al dis tres s; and ( 4) t he emot i onal di s t r es s w as s ever e. ” Id . at 85 5 -56 . T h e d istri ct co u rt found M r . T r ent adue’ s w i fe, m ot her , father , s i s t er , and br other s s at i s fi ed al l four req u ir em en ts an d aw ard ed d am ag es to ea ch fa m il ym em b er. 1 T h e g o v e rn m e n t ap p e a led to th is c o u rt, co n ten d in g th e F a m ilyfa iled to s a tis f ya n yo f th e e le m e n ts o f

in te n tio n a l in flic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . W e concl uded the fa m i l ym ember s “pr oved the fi r s t , s econd, and thi r d el ement s of the t or tof emot i onal di s t r es s , i nt ent i onal orr eckl es s conduct , outr ageous nes s , and caus at i on. ” Id. a t 8 5 7 . “H o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t m a k e e x p licit fi n d i n g s a s t o t h e s e v e r i t yo f e a c h i n d i v i d u a l p l a i n t i ff ’ s e mo t i o n a l d i s tr e s s , ” we w e re u n a b le to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e fo u rt h e le m e n t w a s m e t. Id. at857- 8.- 4-

A ccor di ngl y , w e “va cat e[d] t he FT C A j udgm enti n favorof the pl ai nt i ffs and r emand[ed] foraddi t i onal fi ndi ngs on w hetherthe emot i onal di s tr es s s uffe r ed by eac h pl ai nt i ff w as s ever e underO kl ahoma l aw . ” Id. O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcourts um m ar i l yfound the fourth pr ong had bee n m etand r ei ns t at ed the damage aw ar ds . Speci fi cal l y , the courtconcl uded [u] nderO kl ahoma l aw . . . the emot i onal di s tr es s s uffe r ed byeac h p lain tiff w a s s e v e re . B a se d u p o n th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial, i ncl udi ng t he t es t i m onyof the pl ai nt i ffs , the courtfi nds thateac h pl ai nt i ff s at i s fi ed the fourth el ementof the t or tof i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s w hi ch r equi r es pr oof thatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s emot i onal di s t r es s w as s o s ever e thatno r eas onabl e per s on coul d be expe ct ed t o endur e i t . I n m aki ng thi s fi ndi ng, the courthas al s o cons i der ed the i nt ens i tyand dur at i on of the di s tr es s s uffe r ed by pl ai nt i ffs . . . [and] t he extr eme and out r ageous char act erof the defe ndant ’ s conduct[as ] i m por t antevi dence thatthe di s tr es s exi s t ed. A pp. , V ol . I I I at754- 55. T he governm entappea l s thi s r emand or der , as s er t i ng t he di s t r i ctcourtfai l ed t o fol l ow ourm andat e t o m ake “ expl i ci tfi ndi ngs as t o the s ever i t yof ea ch i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ff’ s emot i onal di s tr es s . ” Tre ntadue I, 397 F. 3d at 85 7 -58 . F u rth er, th eyasse rtthat, as a m att er o f law , the fam il ym em b ers c a n n o tme e tt h e s e v e r i t ye l e me n to f i n t e n t i o n a l i n fl i c t i o n u n d e rOk l a h o ma l a w. O ur“mandat e cons i s t s of ouri ns truct i ons t o the di s tr i ctcour tatthe con cl usi on of the op i nion, and t he en t i re opi nion t hat pr ecede d those i ns t ruct i ons . ” P r oct or& G am bl e C o. , v. Haugen , 3 1 7 F . 3 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 6 (10 th C ir . 2003) . I n r evi ew i ng t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of ourm andat e, “w e cons i der w hethert he courtabus ed the l i m i t ed di s cr et i on thatourm andat e l eftt o i t . ” Id. at- 5-

1 1 2 5 . “T o d ec ide w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rtv iolated th e m an d ate, i t i s n ec essa ry t o exami ne the mandat e and then l ook atw hatthe di s tr i ctcour tdi d. ” Hi cks v. G at es R ubberC o. , 9 2 8 F . 2 d 9 6 6 , 9 6 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). I n Tre ntadue I, w e cl ear l ym andat ed the di s tr i ctcourtt o pr ovi de gr eat er e v id e n tiary su p p o rt fo r its c o n c lu sio n th a t each i nd i vi du al plaint i f f’s di s tr es s w as se v e re u n d e r O k lah o m a law . W e so u g h t an e x p a n d e d d isc u ss io n o f th e se v e rity pr ong beca us e w e w er e “una bl e t o det erm i ne fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s [fi r s t ] or der w hethert he fourt h el ementof the t or tha[d] been met . ” Tre ntadue I, 397 F. 3d at 858. T hi s m andat e w as i nt ended t o el i ci tan i ndi vi dual i zed s ever i tyanal y s i s for th e d iffe re n tly sit u a te d p la in tiffs . S e e id . at 85 7 -58 (“[ B ]ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt di d notm ake expl i ci tf i ndi ngs as t o the s ever i tyof ea ch ind ivi d u a l plainti ff’s emot i onal di s t r es s , w e ar e unabl e t o det erm i ne w hetherthe fourth el ementof the to rt h a s b e e n m e t.” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); i d. at858 ( “r emand[i ng] foraddi t i onal fi n d i n g s o n w h e t h e rt h e e m o t i o n a l d i s tr e s s s u ffe r e d b y e a c h p la in tif f w as se v ere u n d e r O k lah o m a law ” (e m p h a sis a d d e d )); i d. at867 ( r emandi ng “t o the di s tr i ct c o u rt fo r s u p p le m e n ta l fin d in g s o n w h e th e r, u n d e r O k la h o m a la w , each p la in tif f s uffe r ed s ever e emot i onal di s t r es s . ” ( emphasi s added) ) . W e s oughtthi s addi t i onal anal y s i s beca us e fa m i l ym ember s exper i ence d the dea th and i t s aft erm ath fr om di ffe r entvant age poi nt s . Forexampl e, the dec edent ’ s w i fe, m other , and s i s t er per s onal l yw i t nes s ed the unvei l i ng of the unexpe ct edl ybrui s ed and l ace r at ed body o f M r. T ren tadu e a t th e C ali fo rnia f u n era l ho m e, w h il e o ther fam il ym em b ersTh edis tric t c ourtawarde d in div idu a l c omp e ns atio n rang ingfrom $ 50 ,0 00 to 2 $250,000. The nonuniform financial awards sugg est the district court mayhave already determined plaintiffs suffered harms of differingseverity . See TrentadueI, 397 F.3d at 851 n.2.

- 6- w e re o ra lly in fo rm e d o f th e b o d y ’s c o n d itio n . See Tr entadue I, 3 9 7 F .3 d a t 8 5 0 . I thas al w ay s been the governm ent ’ s pos i t i on thatthi s i s a di s t i nct i on w i th a di ffe r ence . A l t hough al l pl ai nt i ffs m ayhave s uffe r ed “s ever e” di s tr es s i n l i ghtof t he governm ent ’ s act i ons , t he fa m i l ym ember s w er e s ubj ect ed t o di ffe r ents tr es s es and the s ever i t yof ea ch pl ai nt i ff’ s di s tr es s ther efor e r equi r es i ndi vi dual i zed eval uat i on. 2 O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcourtfai l ed t o m ake s peci fi c fi ndi ngs r egar di ng t he s ever i t yof the emot i onal di s t r es s eac h fami l ym embers uffe r ed, and w e ar e thus i n no bet t erpos i t i on t o “det erm i ne fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derw hethert he fo u rt h e le m e n t o f

th e to rt h a s b e e n m e t,” th a n w e w e re u p o n o u r fir s t r e v ie w . Id . at858. W e ar e s t i l l unabl e t o eval uat e ade quat el yw hethereac h fami l ym ember h a s s a tis fie d th e fo u rt h p ro n g . See Uni t ed Stat es v. WagonerC ount y RealEs tat e, 2 7 8 F .3 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 1 0 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( re m a n d in g fo r m o re s p e c ific fin d in g s ). Forexampl e, on r emand, t he di s tr i ctcourts t at ed i n eval uat i ng the fourth pr ong t hati tcons i der ed “t es t i m onyof the pl ai nt i ffs , ” app. , vol . I I I at754, and the i nt ens i t yand dur at i on of the di s tr es s undert he pr operl egal s t andar d–pr oof that eac h pl ai nt i ff’ s emot i onal di s t r es s w as s o s ever e no r eas onabl e per s on coul d be exp ect ed to end ure i t . In doing so, ho w ever, t he co urtdid not i den t i fyt hese- 7-

w i t nes s es , t he per s uas i ve cont entof thei rt es t i m ony , orthe cha r act er i s t i cs of the di s t r es s t hatl ed i tt o concl ude the fourth pr ong w as m et . W e ther efor e r emand for t he co urtt o m ake ad dit i on al fi nd i ng s sp e c ifi c to e a c h in d ivid u a l p la in tif f to s u p p o r ti t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a tt h e i re mo t i o n a l d i s tr e s s wa s s e v e r e u n d e rOk l a h o ma l aw . Fur t hers peci fi ci t yas t o t he natur e and s ever i tyof the harm s uffe r ed byeac h in d iv id u a l p lain tiff

w ill sa tisf

yb o th o u r o rig in a l re m a n d a n d th is p re se n t m a n d a te fo r a d d itio n a l fin d in g s . W ith re sp e c t to th e c ro ss -a p p e a l, th e F a m ilyo n re m a n d so u g h t lea v e to di s m i s s w i t houtpr ej udi ce J es s e Tre nt adue’ s col l at er al i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of e m o tio n a l d istre ss c laim . T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied th is re q u e st a n d th e F a m ily c ro s s -a p p e a ls . In its a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, th e F a m ilya lleg e d th a t g o v e rn m e n t o fficia ls in ten tio n a llyin flicte d e m o tio n a l d istre ss o n Je ss e T re n tad u e b y“ k n o w in g ly at t empt [i ng] t o i ndi ctJ es s e C . T r ent adue forobs truct i on of j us t i ce a nd fr aud i n an effor tt o s i l ence hi m . . . ” and t o det erhi s i nves t i gat i on i nt o hi s br other ’ s death. A pp. , vol . I at255. A tt r i al , t he di s tr i ctcourthel d thatthi s i s s ue “w oul d be t ot al l ycol l at er al t o t hi s l i t i gat i on, ” and a l though i t“ce r t ai nl ym i ghtbe the s ubj ect of li t i gati on byM r. Jess e T rent adu e againstthe g ov ernm ent i n som e w ay , [i ti s] notr eal l ypartof thi s l aw s ui t . ” A pp. , vol . X at3615. I n Tre ntadue I, 397 F. 3d at 866, w e addr es s ed the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on nott o cons i derthi s i nt ent i onal i n fl i c t i o n c l a i m,- 8-

r ej ect [i ng] pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum entthatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n not al l ow i ng Jess e T rent adu e t o p ursue hi s separ at e em oti on al dis tres s c l a i m a g a i n s tt h e g o v e r n me n ta l o n g wi th p l a i n t i ffs ’ o th e rF TCA cl ai m s . Pl ai nt i ffs m ade a s er i es of conc l us oryal l egat i ons thatthe D O J w a s a ttem p tin g to “ in d ict” Je ss e T re n tad u e fo r ta m p e rin g w ith w i t nesses. T he d i stri ctcou rtproperl ycon cl ud ed thatthese al l egat i ons w er e col l at er al t o the i s s ues befor e the courti nvol vi ng K e n n e th T re n ta d u e ’s d e a th a n d d e c lin e d to m a k e a d d itio n a l fin d in g s . M or eover , t he pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i ons ar e pr i m ar i l ycent er ed ar ound t he conduc tof the governm ent ’ s tr i al couns el dur i ng di s covery , and ar e notevi dence of m i s conductbyfede r al offi ci al s i nves t i gat i ng T re n tad u e ’s d e a th . W e se e n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n b yth e c o u rt in l i m i t i ng evi dence on t hi s i s s ue. O n r emand, M r . T r ent adue r eques t ed the di s tr i ctcour tt o “di s m i s s [] w i thout pr ej udi ce . . . J es s e C . T r ent adue’ s s ever ed cl ai m of emot i onal di s tr es s bas ed upon the U n it ed S tat es’ e ffo rt s to ind icth im . ” A p p . , v o l. II at 60 9 . Instea d , the c o u rt co n clud ed that it s “p retri al ruli n g s o n the c o ll ateral n ature o f Je sse T ren tadu e’s p u rpo rt ed claim m erg ed into the co u rt ’s fina l j u d g m en t i n this m att er a n d w ere a p p e a lab le b yp lain tiffs,” A p p ., v o l. III a t 7 5 7 , an d th a t “th e e x ten siv e re c o rd in th is c a se d o e s n o t su p p o rt p lain tiffs’ c o n ten tio n th a t th is c laim w a s ‘s e v e re d ’ to be pr es erved fors om e partof a l at ertr i al i n thi s pr ocee di ng, ” i d. a t 7 5 6 . Fur t herm or e, t he courtfound “i tw oul d notbe pr oper ” i n the cont extof our lim ite d re m a n d to c o n s id e r t h is s e p a ra te c la im . Id . at 75 8 . A cc o rdin g ly , the c o u rt d e n ied th e F a m ily ’s r e q u e st. W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour ton thi s i s s ue. A s not ed above , the di s tr i ct c o u rt h a d p re v io u slysta ted th a t itd id n o t co n sid e r Je ss e T re n tad u e ’s c laim a lleg in g th e g o v e rn m e n t’s im p ro p e r a ttem p t to in d ict h im to b e p a rt o f th is- 9-

l aw s ui t . M r . T r ent adue w as cl ear l yon not i ce be for e hi s fi r s tappea l thati ns ofar a s th e d istric t co u rt w a s c o n c e rn e d , h e w o u ld h a v e to file a se p a ra te la w su it t o r ai s e thi s “col l at er al ” cl ai m agai ns tthe governm ent . W e j us tas cl ear l yaff i r m ed t hatdet erm i nat i on i n Tre ntadue I, 397 F. 3d at866. C ons equent l y , ther e w as not hi ng r egar di ng t hi s cl ai m l efti n thi s l aw s ui tforus t o r emand t o the di s tr i ct c o u rt. A s the S ev en th C ir cu ith as su cc inctlystat ed , o n rem an d a d istri ct co u rt “mayaddr es s onl y( 1) t he i s s ues r emanded, ( 2) i s s ues ar i s i ng forthe fi r s tt i m e on re m a n d , o r (3 ) iss u e s th a t w e re tim e lyra ise d b e fo re th e d istric t an d /o r a p p e llate cour t s butw hi ch r emai n undeci ded. ” Un itedS ta tes v . Mo rr is , 259 F. 3d 894, 898 ( 7t h C i r . 2001) . T he Fami l y ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s w as nota r emanded i s s ue and did not ar i se out of t he p res ent r em and . T he d i stri ctcou rttherefore di d n ot abuse i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he Fami l y ’ s r eques tt o fi l e a mot i on t o di s m i s s on r emand. T he Fami l yhad ampl e opportuni tyt o s eek di s m i s s al of thi s i s s ue fr om th e d istric t co u rt b e fo re th e first a p p e a l. I n s um , w e RE M AND foraddi t i onal fi ndi ngs s peci fi c t o eac h i ndi vi dual pl ai nt i ff t o s uppor tt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thatt he emot i onal di s tr es s of- 10-

eac h w as s ever e underO kl ahoma l aw , and w e AF F I RM th e c o u rt’s r e f u sa l to c o n s i d e rf

u r t h e rM r . Tr e n t a d u e ’ s mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s h i s c o l l a t e r a l c l a i m. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge