FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 8, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15795 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 2 0 7 8 - C V - WMH E V E L Y N M A R T I N E Z , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 8, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E ve l y n M a rt i ne z , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e a nd i n f orm apaupe r i s , appe a l s the2

di stri ctcourt ’ s s ua spon t e di sm i ss al of her c om pl ai ntfi l ed pu rs uantt o the F eder al T o r t C la im s A c t ( F T C A ) , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 1 e t s e q . W e a f f irm . M a rt i ne z c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by di s m i s s i ng he rc om pl a i nt . S he a r gue s tha the rc om pl a i nti s notf r i vol ous orm a l i c i ous , a nd s he a s s e r ts th a t it d o e s n o t f a il to s ta te ac la im u p o n w h ic h r e lie f m a y b e g r a n te d . I n a n i n f orm apaupe r i s pr oc e e di ng, “ the c our ts ha l l di s m i s s the c a s e a ta ny t i m e i f the c ourtde t e rm i ne s tha t. . . ( B ) the a c t i on orappe a l

— ( i ) i s f r i vol ous or m a l i c i ous [ or ] ; ( i i ) f

a i l s t o s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f m a y be gr a nt e d. ” 28 U . S . C . § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) –( i i ) . I n m a ki ng tha tde t e rm i na t i on, “ [ p] r o s e pl e a di ngs a r e h e ld to ale s s s tr in g e n t s ta n d a r d th a n p le a d in g s d r a f te d b y a tto rn e y s a n d w ill, the r e f or e , be l i be r a l l y c ons true d. ” T a nne nbaum v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 148 F . 3d 1262, 1263 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . N e ve rthe l e s s , pr o s e s t a tus w i l l nots a ve af r i vol ous c o mp l a i n tf

r o m d i s mi s s a l . Se e D e n t o n v . H e rn a n d e z , 5 0 4 U . S. 2 5 , 3 3

– 3 4 , 1 1 2 S. C t. 1 7 2 8 , 1 7 3 4 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s uas pont e di s m i s s a l f orf r i vol i ty unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) onl y f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. B i l a l v. D r i ve r , 251 F . 3d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A c o m p la in t “is f r iv o lo u s w h e r e it la c k s a n a r g u ab le b a s is e ith e rin la w o rin f a c t.” N e itz k e v . W illia m s , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 1 8 2 7 , 1 8 3 1

– 3 2 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ; s e e a ls o B ila l, 2 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 9 . D is tr ic t c o u r ts n o t o n ly3

have “ the autho ri ty t o d i sm i ss a c l ai m base d o n an i nd i sput abl y m er i t l es s l egal theory, bu tal so the un usual po w ert o p i er ce the vei l of the com pl ai nt ’ s f ac tual a lle g a tio n s a n d d is m is s th o s e c la im s w h o s e f a c tu a l c o n te n tio n s a r e c le a r ly ba s e l e s s . ” N e i t z ke , 490 U . S . a t327, 109 S . C t . a t1833. F r i vol ous c l a i m s i nc l ude tho se “ desc ri bi ng fant as t i c or del usi on al sc enar i os . . . . ” I d. at32 8; 10 9 S . C t . at 1833. A di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s uas pont e di s m i s s a l f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , how e ve r , i s r e vi e w e d de novo, vi e w i ng the a l l e ga t i ons in th e c o m p la in t a s tru e . H u g h e s v . L o tt, 3 5 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 5 9

– 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) .

“ D i s m i s s a l i s notappr opr i a t e unl e s s i ti s pl a i n tha tthe pl a i nt i f f c a n pr ove no s e tof fact s th atw o u l d su p p o rtth e cl ai m s i n th e co m p l ai n t . ” D av i l a v . D el t a A i r L i n es, Inc. , 32 6 F . 3d 11 83 , 11 85 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). N on ethel es s, a di stri ctcourtm ay prop er l y di sm i ss a c om pl ai ntthati s bas ed on “ concl usory a l l egat i on s, un w arrant ed f a c tua l de duc t i ons orl e ga l c onc l us i ons m a s que r a di ng a s f a c t s . ” I d. A l though the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e rd is m is s in g M a r tin e z ’s c o m p la in t d id n o t id e n tif y th e s ta tu te un der w hi ch M art i nez w as proceedi ng , her c om pl ai ntci t ed the F T C A , and a l i bera l construct i on of her pl ea di ng s s ug gest s thati tw as the basi s f or her c l ai m . S ee M ille rv . S ta n m o r e , 6 3 6 F .2 d 9 8 6 , 9 9 1

– 9 2 ( 5 th C ir . F e b . 1 9 8 1 ) ( lib e r a llyDec isions by the former F ifth Circuit issued beforeOctober 1, 1981 arebinding 1 prec edent in this Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F .2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981). 4 construi ng a c om pl ai ntas al l egi ng a c l ai m un der the F T C A ). 1 U n d e rth e F T C A th e U n ite d S ta te s c a n b e liab le in to r t b u t c a n n o t b e h e ld liab le f o rp u n itiv e d a m a g e s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 7 4 . T h e F T C A ’s w a iv e ro f im m u n ity i s s ubj e c tt o s e ve r a l e xc e pt i ons . S e e i d. § 2680. T he di s c r e t i ona ry f unc t i on e x c e p tio n p r e c lu d e s g o v e rn m e n t liab ility f o r : A ny cl ai m base d u po n an actor om i ss i on of an em pl oyee of the G ove rnm e nt , e xe r c i s i ng due c a r e , i n the e xe c ut i on of as t a tut e orr e gul a t i on, w he the rornots uc h s t a tut e or r e gul a t i on be va l i d, orba s e d upon the e xe r c i s e or p e r f o rma n c e o rth e f

a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e o rp e r f o rm a di sc re t i on ary f

un ct i on or du ty on the partof a f eder al a ge nc y ora n e m pl oy e e of the G ove rnm e nt , w he the ror notthe di s c r e t i on i nvol ve d be abus e d. Id. § 2 68 0(a) . T he S upr e m e C ourtha s de ve l ope d atw o- s t e p t e s tt o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe go vernm ent ’ s c on du ctm ee t s the di sc re t i on ary f un ct i on exce pt i on . S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. G aube rt , 499 U . S . 315, 323, 111 S . C t . 1267, 1274 ( 1991) . W e ha ve e xpl a i ne d tha ti n appl y i ng tha tt e s t , f i r s tw e m us t“ de t e rm i ne w he the rthe chal l enged actor om i ss i on vi ol at ed a m andat ory r egul at i on or po l i cythatal l ow ed no j ud gm entor choi ce . ” A ut ery v. U ni t ed S t at es , 99 2 F . 2d 15 23 , 15 26 (11th C i r.5

19 93 ). T he di sc re t i on ary f un ct i on exce pt i on w i l l no tappl y “ i f afe dera l st atut e, r e g u la tio n , o rp o lic y s p e c if ic a lly p r e s c r ib e s ac o u r s e o f a c tio n f o ra n e m p lo y e e to f o llo w .” G au b e rt, 4 9 9 U .S . a t 3 2 2 , 1 1 1 S . C t. a t 1 2 7 3 . S e c ond, “ [ e ] ve n a s s um i ng the c ha l l e nge d c onduc ti nvol ve s a n e l e m e ntof j udgm e nt , ” w e m us te va l ua t e w he the r“ the c ha l l e nge d a c t i ons a r e the ki nd of co n d u ctth atth e d i scret i o n ary fu n ct i o n ex cep t i o n w as d esi g n ed t o sh i el d . ” A u t ery, 992 F . 2d a t1526–27 ( quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ [ T ] he purpos e of the e xc e pt i on i s t o “ pr e ve ntj udi c i a l s e c ond- gue s s i ng of l e gi s l a t i ve a nd a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i ons gr ounde d i n s oc i a l , e c onom i c , a nd pol i t i c a l pol i c y thr ough the m e di um of a n a c t i on i n t ort . ” G aube rt , 499 U . S . a t323, 111 S . C t . a t1273 ( quot a t i on m a rks a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . B efo re ap p l yi n g th e G au b ertt estt o th e g o v ern m en t ’ s co n d u ct , w e m u st

“ de t e rm i ne e xa c t l y w ha tc onduc ti s a ti s s ue . ” A ut e ry , 992 F . 2d a t1527. T he c onduc ta ti s s ue i n the pr e s e ntc a s e i s the E E O C ’ s pr oc e s s i ng of ac ha r ge of d is c r im in a tio n . I t is u n c le a rf r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rw h e th e rit in te n d e d to d is m is s M a rtin e z ’s c o m p la in t a s f r iv o lo u s u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) o rf o rf a ilin g to st at e acl ai m un der § 19 15 (e )( 2)(B )( i i ). H ow ever , w e nee d n otre sol ve thatm att er here because both sub se ct i on s app l y — the com pl ai ntl ac ks an ar gu abl e bas i s i n l aw a nd i n f a c t , s e e B i l a l , 251 F . 3d a t1349, a nd i ti s c l e a rf r om the f a c e of the6

co m p l ai n tth atM art i n ez can p ro v e n o seto f fact s th atw o u l d su p p o rth er cl ai m s, s e e D a vi l a , 326 F . 3d a t1185. R a the rtha n pr e s e nt i ng as e tof f a c t s tha tw oul d s uppor the rc l a i m of w r ongdoi ng by the E E O C , M a rt i ne z ’ s c om pl a i ntpr e s e nt e d c onc l us ory a l l e ga t i ons a nd l e ga l c onc l us i ons . F ore xa m pl e , s he a l l e ge s tha the rc aus e of a c t i on a r os e f

r om a“m a s s iv e c o n s p ir a c y b y th e lo c a l, s ta te a n d f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t” a g a in s t h e r . C o m p lain t at 2 . S h e c laim s th at th e w ro n g fu l co n d u ct co n sisted o f th e E E O C ’s i m prop erhand l i ng of her c harges of em pl oym entdi sc ri m i nat i on i n v i ol at i on of her ci v i l ri g h t s an d th atas a resu l tsh e su ffered em o t i o n al , p h ysi cal , an d m en t al i n j u ry. S he s e e ks puni t i ve da m a ge s , w hi c h a r e nota va i l abl e unde rthe F T C A . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2674. T he E E O C i s nots ubj e c tt o t or tl i abi l i ty a l l e ge dl y a r i s i ng f r om the perf orm ance of i t s di sc re t i on ary dut i es . S ee 28 U . S . C . § 2 68 0(a) . T he di sc re t i on ary f

un ct i on exce pt i on cl earl y app l i es here because the al l eged m is c o n d u c t in v o lv e d th e e le m e n ts o f ju d g m e n t a n d c h o ic e . S e e 2 8 U .S .C . § 2680( a ) ; s e e A ut e ry , 992 F . 2d a t1526. C ongr e s s ha s notdi c t a t e d the r e s ul ttha tthe E E O C m u s t r e a c h in p r o c e s s in g ac h a r g e o f d is c r im in a tio n . S e e 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e - 5 e t s e q . T h e E E O C ’s f u n c tio n o f

p r o c e s s in g ac h a r g e o f

d is c r im in a tio n is the ki nd of

a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i onm a ki ng tha tC ongr e s s i nt e nde d t o s hi e l d f r om t or tl i abi l i ty . S e e G aube rt , 499 U . S . a t323, 111 S . C t . a t1273–74.7

E v e n w ith lib e r a l c o n s tru c tio n o f h e rc o m p la in t a n d a c c e p ta n c e o f its a lle g a tio n s a s tru e , M a rtin e z c a n n o t s h o w th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d o rab u s e d its d i s c r e t i o n i n i t s s u as p o n t e d i s mi s s a l o f h e rc o mp l a i n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. A F F I R M E D .