2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-29-2009 

# G ib son v . S a dowsk i P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4677

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " G ibs on v . S a dowski " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1974. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1974AL D- 8 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 06- 4677

___________ VANC E M AR CE L GI BS ON, A ppel l ant v . N .E . R E G IO N A L D IR . H E N R Y J. S A D O W S K I; UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 00242) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr.

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J anuary23, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary29, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM V ance M ar cel G i bs on, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s t he di s m i s s al of hi s l aw s ui tal l egi ng vi ol at i ons of the Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct( “FT C A ”) . B eca us e the a pp e a l pr e s e nt s no s ub s t a nt i a l qu e s t i on , w e w i l l s umm a r i l ya ff i r m. LA R 27. 4; I . O . P.I ni t i al l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notadoptt he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s br oad i nt erpr et at i on 1 of the phr as e “otherl aw enfor cementoffi cer s . ” The U ni t ed St at es fi l ed a mot i on for r econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed, es s ent i al l yhol di ng t hata 2000 am end m ent t o § 26 80 (c) dem on strat ed thati tapp l i ed to B O P corr ect i on s officer s. 2 1 0 .6 . I n A ugus t2004, G i bs on fi l ed a c om pl ai nt , w hi ch he l at eramended, undert he Feder al T or t s C l ai m s A ct( “FT C A ”) , al l egi ng t hatB ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) s t aff

l os tor d estroy ed v ariou s it em s o f h is pe rson al pro p ertyw h il e h e w as in ca rce rated at F C IM cK ean. T he amended compl ai ntnamed as defe ndant s t he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca a nd H e n ryJ. S a d o w sk i, N o rth e a st R e g io n a l C o u n se l o f th e B O P . G ib so n so u g h t $ 2 3 7 .5 2 in m onet arydamages , pl us $20, 000 i n compensa t or ydamages for“cruel and unus ual p u n ishm en t. ” T h e d ef

en d an ts fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss, o r i n the a lt ern ati v e, fo r sum m ary j udgm ent . T he mat t erw as r efe r r ed t o a M agi s t r at e J udge, w ho r ecomm ended gr ant i ng t he defe ndant s ’ m ot i on. T he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia u lti m a telya g re e d , h o ld in g (1 ) th a t G ib so n h a d f a iled to e x h a u st h is admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es w i t h r es pectt o cert ai n cl ai m s ; ( 2) t hati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on over G ib so n ’s r e q u e st f

o r c o m p e n sa to ryd a m a g e s b e c a u se it ex c e e d e d th e a m o u n t o f th e c laim pr es ent ed t o t he B O P; ( 3) t hatD efe ndantSadow s ki w as nota pr operpar t yundert he FT C A ; and ( 4) t hatt he B O P offi cer s w ho al l egedl yl os thi s pr oper t yqual i fyas “otherl aw enfor cementoffi cer s ” forpurpos es of 28 U . S. C . § 2680( c) , t her ebyexempt i ng t hem from t he FT C A ’ s gener al w ai verof s over ei gn i m m uni ty . G i bs on appea l ed. 13

A ppel l at e j ur i s di ct i on exi s t s under28 U . S. C . § 1291, and w e mayaff i r m on any bas i s s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. See Fai r vi ew T ow ns hi p v. E PA , 773 F. 2d 517, 525 n. 15 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). T he FT C A w ai ves t he U ni t ed St at es ’ s over ei gn i m m uni t yforcl ai m s ar i s i ng outof t or t s comm i t t ed byfede r al empl oy ees “underci r cumst ance s w her e . . . a pr i vat e per s on

. . . w oul d be l i abl e” unde rappl i cabl e s t at e t or tl aw . See 28 U . S. C . § 1346( b) ( 1) . B utt he FT C A exempt s fr om t hi s w ai vercert ai n cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng “[a ] nycl ai m ar i s i ng i n r es pect of the asses sm ent orcoll ect i on of an yt ax o r cust om s duty , or the d et enti on of an ygo od s, m er chandi s e, orot herpr oper t ybyanyoffi cerof cus t om s orexci s e oranyot herl aw enfo rcem ent offi cer. ” § 2 68 0(c) . W hen t he D i stri ctC ou rtcon si dered G i bson ’s cl ai m s, t her e w as di s agr eementamong t he C our t s of A ppeal s as t o w hethert hi s pr ovi s i on appl i ed onl yt o offi cer s per form i ng cus t om s orexci s e func t i ons , ori f i tappl i ed t o al l l aw enfor cementoffi cer s . See A B C v. D E F, 500 F. 3d 103, 106 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( not i ng s pl i tof a u th o rityo n th e iss u e ). S in c e th e n , h o w e v e r, th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld that claim s ag ains t correc ti o n s o ff icers w h o are ac cu sed o f m isha n d li n g an inm ate’s pr oper t yfal l w i t h t he FT C A ’ s exce pt i on t o t he U ni t ed St at es ’ w ai verof s over ei gn im m u n ity. S e e A li v . F e d . B u re a u o f P ri s o n s , – U .S . – , 1 2 8 S . C t. 8 3 1 , 8 4 0 -4 1 (2 0 0 8 ). T h e re f o re , b e c a u se G ib so n ’s c laim s a re b a rre d b yth e e x c e p tio n to to rt liab ili tyf o u n d in § 2680( c) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the l aw s ui tforl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on. See i d. ; s ee a l s o K os ak v. U ni t ed St at es , 465 U . S. 848, 854 ( 1984) ( hol di ngth a t p h ra se “ a n yc laim a risin g in re sp e c t o f ” th e d e ten tio n o f

g o o d s m e a n s a n yc laim “ar i s i ng outof” the det ent i on of goods , and i ncl udes a cl ai m r es ul t i ng fr om negl i gent h an d li n g o r st o rag e o f d etaine d p rop erty . ). W e w ill su m m a rilya f

f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

4