FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 87 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -2 34 12 -MGC PEDRO PRECIADO RODRI GUEZ, an d h is wife , GENELD A MARMOLEJ O, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s- App el lant s, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 17 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pedro Prec ia do Ro dr ig ue z an d h is wife Gene ld a Marm ol ejo fi le d aciv ilact io n und er the Fed eral TortCla im s ACT (F TCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 46 (b )(1 ) an d

26 74 , andun de r st at e la w forne gl ig en ce ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s. Th e p la in ti ffs
so ug htda m ag es for

in juri es Ro dr ig ue z su ffer edwhi le he was d et ai ne d a t Kro m e Serv ic e Pro ces si ng Cen te r (Kro m e). The di st ric t co urt d is m is se d the co m pl ai ntfor la ckof s ub

ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e al le ge d c on du ctfel l wi th in th e di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on to th e FTCA’s wai ve r of im m un ity . W e aff

irm. Gov ern m en t re gu la ti on s re qu ire Krom e to pro vi de ex erci se equi pm en t t o de ta in ees , bu t the type o f equi pm en t i s n otsp eci fie d. Th e rec reat io na l s pe ci al is t, who is res po ns ib le forsel ect in g a ndm ai nt ai ni ng th e equi pm en t atKrom e, ch os e th e Hip & Dip Ch inCo m bo m ach in e. Thi s m ach in e is bo lt edto th e co nc ret e fl oo r, ha s n o m ov in g p art s, an d i s ea sy to u se . The Re crea ti on al Sp eci al is t as si gn edto Kro m e is av ai labl e to pro vi de ass is tanc e an d trai ni ng on th e equi pm en t. The equi pm en t i s i ns pe ct edda il y . On Fe brua ry

18 , 20 08 , whi le de ta in edat Kro m e p en di ng rem ov al pr oc eed in gs , Rod rig ue z was in jure d wh il e atte m

pt in g t o u se th e Hip & Dip Ch in Co m bo m ach in e in hi s d orm it ory . Alth ou gh no on e atKrom e h adin stru ct edhi m ho w to us e th e m ach in e an d h e n ev er as ke d fo r as si st an ce, Ro dr ig ue z h adwatc he d ot he r de ta in ees us e it . Thatev en in g, Ro dr ig ue z cl im be d t o the to p o f th e m ach in e in aneffo rt t o re ach th e h an dl es an d the n ju m pe d o r fel l o nt o the co nc ret e fl oo r. 2The gu ard s h eardth e th um p, b utdi d n otwitne ss th e fal l. Ro dr ig ue z was tra ns ferr edto th e h os pi ta l wh ere h e was di ag no se d wi th a tr au m at ic cerv ic al sp in e in jury; he wi ll li ke ly requ ire li fe-l on g c are. Ro dr ig ue z an d h is wife th enfil edth is civ il act io n a ga in stth e Uni te d S ta te s cl ai min g tha t the au th or it ie s atKrom e were n eg li ge ntby fail in g t o s up erv is e an d in st ru ctRo dr ig ue z o n the pro pe r us e o f th e equi pm en t. Inth ei r th ree- co un t co m pl ai nt , th e p la in ti ffs all eg edne gl ig en ce u nd er the FTCA an d s tate law an d l os s of co ns orti um . The di stric t co urt su a s

po nt e di sm is se d the co m pl ai ntwith p reju di ce fo r la ck of subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on , app lying th e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti onto th e go ve rn m en t’s wai ve r of

im m un ity . The co urt fo un d tha t, al th ou gh reg ul at io ns

1 requi redKrom e to pro vi de equi pm en t, the de ci si on as t o wh attype o f equi pm en t was di sc ret io na ry

an d the re were no reg ul at io ns set ti ng forthKrom e’s
res po ns ib il ity

to tra in , supe rv is e, orwarnde ta in ees who us edth e equi pm en t. As th e co urt ex pl ai ne d, “ Kro m e h adto pro vi de de ta in ees with a cces s t o re crea ti on al pr og ram s u nd er s afe c on di ti on s b utha d d is cret io n a s t o the m an ne r an d m etho d o f
carry in g o utth is no n- sp eci fic gu id el in e.” Aft er u ns uc ces sf ul ly mov in g fo r rel ie f

The c ourt also dec lined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over the state -law 1 claims. 3fro m

th e jud gm en t, p la in ti ffs ap pe al
. 2 W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f th e di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on to th e FTCA de no vo . Och ra n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 3 11 7 F .3d49 5, 4 99 -5 00 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). The Uni te d S ta te s g ov ern m en t m ay no t b e su edwitho utit s co ns en t, an d thi s imm un ity ex te nd s t o fe de ral go ve rn m en t ag en ci es . Aso ci ac io n de Empl ea do s del Area Ca na le ra (ASEDAC) v. Pa na ma Ca na l Co m’n , 45 3 F .3d13 09 , 13 15 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Und er the FTCA, th e fed eral go ve rn m en t wai ve s i ts im m un ity reg ard in g n eg li ge ntor wro ng fu l ac ti on s co m m it te d b y it s emplo y ees withi n the
sc op e o f th ei r of

fic ia l dut ie s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 46 (b )(1 ). Bu t the re i s a “ di sc ret io na ry func ti on ex cep ti on ” to th e FTCA’s wai ve r of imm un ity . Ng uy en v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 6 F .3d12 44 , 12 50 -5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) ; se e a ls o 28 U.S.C. § 2 68 0( a). The di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n e xc ep ti on pre cl ud es go ve rn m en t l iabi li ty for “ [a]ny cl ai m We rejec t Rodrigue z’s argument that it was err or for the district court to dismiss his 2 complaint without notice and the oppor tunity to conduct discove ry . See Mesa v . United States , 123 F.3d 1435, 1439 ( 11th Cir. 1997); see also Mc Elmurray v. Consol. Gov’ t of AugustaRichmond Cnty. , 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 ( 11th Cir. 2007). The district cour t had bef ore it the parties’ discovery

materia l and the plaintiffs have not proff ere d what additional discove ry they would have obta ined to addre ss subject-matter jurisdiction. Although the court’s or der dismissed the ca se for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction by 3 grantingthe g overnme nt’s motion for summary judgme nt, we construe that order as a dismissal under F eder al Rule of Civil P roce dure 12(b)(1)
. Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A. , 505 F.3d 1173, 1182 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 4ba se d upo n . . . th e ex erci se or p erfo rm an ce o r th e fai lu re t o e xe rci se or p erfo rm a di sc ret io na ry

fun ct io n o r du ty on the pa rt o f a fed eral ag en cy or a n e m pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t, wh ethe r orno t the di sc ret io n i nv ol ve d b e ab us ed .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 68 0( a). Whe n the di sc ret io nary fun ct io n e xc ep ti on to th e FTCA ap pl ie s, n o fed eral subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts . Uni te d Sta tes Avi at io n Un de rw ri te rs , In c. v. Uni te d Sta tes , 56 2 F .3d12 97 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). In d eci di ng whet he r subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on ex is ts , we m ay co ns id er the pl ead in gs an d m at te rs ou ts id e th e p le ad in gs , su chas t es ti m on y an d a ffi da vi ts , to sat is fy

ou rs el ve s as to ou r po wer t o h ear t he cas e. McMa st er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 17 7 F .3d93 6, 9 40 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)
. W e ap pl y a two -p arttes t fo r de te rm in in g wh ethe r a g ov ern m en t em pl oyee’s act io n o r omiss io n fa ll s wi th in th e d is cret io na ry fun ct io n e xc ep ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. 3 15 , 32 2- 23 (19 91 ); Aut er y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 99 2 F .2d15 23 , 15 26 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Fir st , th e co urt i s t o c on si de r th e n atur e o f th e co nduc t an d de te rm in e whe th er i t i nv ol ve s “ anele m en t o f jud gm en t o r ch oi ce.” Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. at 3 22 (ci ta ti on om itte d) ; se e a ls o Pow er s v. Un it ed

Stat es , 99 6 F .2d11 21 , 11 24 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). Seco nd , if the co nduc t atis su e in vo lv es th e ex erci se of jud gm en t, the co urt m

us t d et erm in e whe th er tha t ju dg m en t i s g ro un de d i n co ns id erat io ns of p ub li c p ol ic y . Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. at32 2- 23 . “ Inm ak in g thi s 5de te rm in at io n, we d o n otfoc us on th e subjec ti ve in te ntof t he go ve rn m en t

em pl oyee orin qu ire whet he r th e em pl oyee actua ll y

weig he d s oc ia l, ec on om ic , and po li ti cal po li cy

co ns id erat io ns be fo re ac ti ng .” Co he n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 15 1 F .3d 13 38 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ti ng Och ra n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 11 7 F .3d49 5, 5 00 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) ). Here, Ro dr ig ue z ch al le ng es Krom e’s fai lu re t o i ns tru ct , supe rv is e, an d warn hi m reg ard in g the us e o f th e Hip & Dip Ch in Co m bo Mac hi ne . The Dep art m en t

4 of Hom el an d S ecu rit y ’s Im m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t Det en ti on Ope rat io ns Man ua l p ro vi de s, 1. fa ci li ti es m

us t p ro vi de de ta in ees with “ acce ss to recr eat io na l p ro gr am s an d a ct iv it ie s u nd er co nd it io ns of s ecu rit y an d s up erv is io n tha t p ro te ctth ei r sa fety an d wel fare ,” 2. ea chde te nt io n c en te r “ sh al l h av e anin di vi du al res po ns ib le forth e de ve lo pm en t an d o ve rs ig htof t he recr eat io n p ro gr am ,” 3. the “ Rec reat io na l Sp eci al is t s ha ll ass es s the ne ed s an d i nt eres ts of the de ta in ees ,” 4. “ Exe rci se area s s ha ll off er a v ari ety

of e qu ip m en t. Weig httra in in g, i f of fere d, m us t b e li m it edto fix edequi pm en t. Fre e wei gh ts are p ro hi bi te d,” an d 5. “ Pro gr am s an d a ct iv it ie s ar e subjec t t o the faci li ty’ s s ecurity an d op erat io na l g ui de li ne s an d m ay be res tri ct edat t he [of

fic er i n c ha rg e’s] di sc ret io n.” Se e INS Det en ti on Sta nd ard , Recre at io n, I, II I(F) , (G) (2 00 0)
. 5 Plaintiffs do not challeng e the de cision to include the Hip & Dip Chin Combo Machine 4 as par t of the re cre ational equipment. Available at http://www.ice .g ov/doclib/dro/detention-standar ds/pdf/rec reation.pdf. 5 6Ro dr ig ue z co nt en ds th atbe cau se th e m anua l re qu ire d Kro m e em pl oyees t o supe rv is e th e u se of e qu ip m en t, an d the re were em pl oyees p res en t wh enhe fel l, th e d is cret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y , as the re was no ch oi ce o r jud gm en t i nv ol ve d. He fu rth er ar gu es th atth e requi rem en t tha t Kro m e h av e a recr eat io na l s pe ci al is t o n s it e al so rem ov es an y di sc ret io n. We di sa gr ee. The m anua l s et s fo rth th e b as ic requi rem en t tha t Kro m e o fferrecr eat io na l equi pm en t. Go ve rn m en t co nduc t d oe s n otin vo lv e anele m en t o f jud gm en t o r ch oi ce, an d thu s i s n otdi sc ret io na ry , if “ a fed eral st atut e, reg ul at io n, o r po li cy sp eci fic al ly pres cri be s a c ou rs e o f act io n fo r anem pl oyee to fol lo w, bec au se th e em pl oyee ha s n o ri gh tfu l o pt io n b utto adhe re t o the di rect iv e.” Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. at32 2 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . But , inth is cas e, th e m anua l d oe s n ot“ sp eci fic al ly pres cri be a co ur se of a ct io n.” Altho ug h the m anua l requi res Krom e o ffer

saf e co nd it io ns forth e u se of thi s equi pm en t, the re i s n o reg ul at io n o n p oi ntto di rectth e m anne r in whi chKrom e p ro vi de s s uc h c on di ti on s. Infact , th e m anua l s pe ci fic al ly pro vi de s tha t the act iv it ie s ar e subjec t t o the of fic er’s d is cret io n. Gi ve n the se st an da rd s, the re i s l it tl e d oubtth atth is is pr eci se ly the type o f di sc ret io n o r ch oi ce tha t fa ll s wi th in th e d is cret io na ry func ti on ex cep ti on . Se e Co he n , 15 1 F .3dat 1 34 1- 42 (co nc lu di ng th atpri so ne r cl as si fic at io n i nv ol ve s ch oi ce an d ju dg m en t ev enth ou gh Bureauof P ris on s i s 7requi redby statut e to pro vi de forth e p ro te ct io n o f it s i nm at es ).

Turn in g t o the sec on d p ro ng of t he an al y si s, we m us t d et erm in e “ whe th er th e n atur e o f th e d eci si on or c on du ctat i ss ue is su sc ep ti bl e to po li cy an al y si s.” Co he n , 15 1 F .3dat 1 34 4 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o mitte d) . Rodrig ue z co m pl ai ns of th e fai lu re t o i ns tru ct , supe rv is e, an d warn h im of t he da ng er o f th e Hip & Dip Ch in Co m

bo m ach in e. W e n ot e th atth ere was a recr eat io na l s pe ci al is t o n s ta ff
an d tha t Ro dr ig ue z n ev er as ke d fo r an y in stru ct io n. To requi re Kro m e st aff t o an ti ci pa te bo th hi s u ns po ke n n eedforass is tanc e an d the li ke li ho odth athe wou ld
us e th e equi pm en t i m

pr op erl y ren de rs th e st aff u nabl e to ad dr es s m or e p res si ng ne ed s i n the faci li ty. W e co nc lu de th atth is is th e type o f de ci si on subjec t t o p ol ic y an al y si s. Pro te ct ed“ [d ]iscr et io na ry co nduc t i s n otco nf

in edto th e p ol ic y

or pl an ni ng lev el .” Gau be rt , 49 9 U.S. at32 5. Ra th er, “ [d ]ay -to -d ay m an ag em en t . . . reg ul arl y requi res jud gm en t as to whi chof aran ge of p erm is si bl e co ur se s i s the wis es t.” Id

. ; se e a ls o Hugh es v. Uni te d Sta tes , 11 0 F .3d76 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) (ap pl y in g d is cret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on wher e th e p la in ti ff h adall eg edth atth e po st al servi ce was ne gl ig en t b y fai li ng to pro vi de ad equa te li gh ti ng or s ecu rit y to pa tro ns us in g the twen ty-fou r-h ou r acc es s) . In the in st an t ca se , th es e d eci si on s requi re co ns id erat io ns of i ns ti tu ti on al sec ur ity , saf ety , andord er. Se e, e.g . Bell v. W ol fish , 44 1 U.S. 5 20 , 54 7 (1 97 9) (“ Pri so n a dm in is tra to rs . . . sh ou ldbe acco rd ed 8wid e ran gi ng de fere nc e in th e ad op ti on an d e xe cu ti onof p ol ic ie s an d p ract ic es th at

in th ei r jud gm en t ar e n eed edto pre se rv e in te rn al ord er an d d is ci pl in e an d t o m ai nt ai n i ns ti tu ti on al sec ur ity .”). Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco urt pr op erl y di sm is se d the co m

pl ai ntforlac k o f subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on . AFFIRMED.

9