FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB RUARY 6, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 11 98 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 7- 00 66 5- CV-RDP DENISE FREEMAN,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE,
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 ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 6, 2 00 9)
Befo re WILSON and COX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d ALBR ITTON, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

PER CURI AM:
Den is e Free m an ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e
U.S. Mar sh al Serv ic e. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de

Honora ble Wil liam H. Albritton, I I I , United States District J udg e for the Middle District of * Alabama , sitti ng by

desig nation.no vo , app lying th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ard s t ha t co nt ro ll ed th e d is tri ct co ur t. Mea ns v.

Uni te d S ta te s , 17 6 F .3d 13 76 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ).
On Apr il 12 , 20 07 , Free m an br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t th e U.S. Mar sh al Se rv ic e (“ th e
Serv ic e”) pu rs ua nt to th e Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act (“ FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 13 46

. Her
cl ai m s ari se fro m th e al le ge dl y to rti ou s co nd uc t of a Co ur t Secu rit y Offi cer (“ CSO”)

at th e Ann is to n, Alab am a fed eral co ur th ou se
. Nin et y da y s lat er, the Serv ic e m ov ed
fo r di sm is sa l as a m at te r of la w, or in th e al te rn at iv e, su m m ary jud gm en t, rel y in g on
th e co nt ract be twee n th e Serv ic e an d A K AL Secu rit y , In c. (“ AKAL”), a pr iv at e

se cu rit y co m

pa ny fo r whi ch al l Ann is to n co ur th ou se CSOs wor ke d, to arg ue th at th e
CSO i s an em

pl oyee of th e in de pe nd en t co nt ract or on ly, no t a f ed eral em pl oyee fo r
pu rp os es of th e FTCA. The di st ric t cou rt con ve rte d th e m ot io n to on e fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d or de red ad di ti on al br ie fin g. In he r res po ns e to th e Serv ic e’s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t, Free m an req ue st ed de ni al of th e m ot io n on two gr ou nd s: (1 ) th at ,

un de r th e co nt ract , th e Ser vi ce res erv ed th e rig ht to di rect ly co nt ro l th e da y -to -d ay
op erat io ns of th e CSOs ; and (2 ) th at di sc ov ery, whi ch ha d n ot y et be en tak en in th e

cas e, wou ld aid Free m an in pro vi ng fact s o f da y -to -d ay co nt ro l. (R.1 -1 6 a t 1 2.)
Th e d i st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e Serv ic e. In it s o r d e r
gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t, th e co ur t fo cu se d on th e te rm s of th e co nt ract be twee n

t h e S e r v ic e an d th e se cu rit y co nt ract or an d fo un d th at , un de r th e te rm s of th at

2co nt ract , th e CSO is no t un de r fed eral co nt ro l. (R.1 -1 8 at 14 .) The di st ric t co ur t al so

fo un d th at th ere was no r e c o r d e v i de nc e of fere d to co nt rad ic t th e te rm s of th e

co nt ract . (

Id

. at 1 5.) The refo re, t he di st ric t co ur t h el d t ha t t he CSO is no t a f ed eral

em pl oyee an d th e Serv ic e can no t be li ab le to Free m an pu rs ua nt to FTCA fo r act s of
th e CSO. (

Id

. at 14 , 15 , 21 .) The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad dr es s Free m an ’s req ue st fo r
ti m e to co nd uc t d is co ve ry
. Free m an ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at t h e C S O sh ou ld be co ns id ered a fed eral

em pl oyee, r at he r th an an in d ep en de nt co nt ract or , f or FTCA pu rp os es
. The Serv ic e
di sa gr ees an d d efen ds th e jud gm en t.
W e ap pl y th e es ta bl is he d “ co nt ro l te st ” to de te rm in e whe th er an ind iv id ua l is

a g o v ern m en t em

pl oyee or an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or fo r FTCA pu rp os es
. “ [A]

pe rs on is an em

pl oyee of th e Gov ern m en t if th e Gov ern m en t co nt ro ls an d su pe rv is es
th e da y -to -d ay act iv it ie s of th e al le ge d to rtf eas or du rin g th e rel ev an t ti m e.” Pat te rs on
& W il de r Co ns tr

. Co

. v. Uni te d St at es , 22 6 F.3 d 12 69 , 12 74 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ). App lying th is te st , we co ns id er th e te rm s o f t h e c o nt ract be twee n th e Serv ic e an d
A K A L an d an y ot he r reco rd fact s th at m ig ht il lu m in at e th e ex te nt of th e Se r v i c e ’s

co nt ro l o ve r CSO d ay -to -d ay act iv it ie s.
Und er th e co nt ract be twee n th e Serv ic e an d AKAL, a D e p u t y M a rs ha l is
d e s i g n at ed as th e Co nt ract in g Offi cer’s Tech ni cal Rep res en ta ti ve (“ COTR”). The

3COTR is res po ns ib le fo r pr ov id in g po st or de rs an d st an da rd op erat in g pr oc ed ur es fo r

each CSO po st , a ss ig ni ng an d sc he du li ng pa tro l ro ut es , a ut ho riz i n g CSO ov ert im e,

an d di rect in g CSOs to pe rfo rm ot he r co ur t se cu rit y rel at ed du ti e s
. A Lead CSO

rep or ts di rect ly to th e COTR, an d each da y th e COTR “ co or di na te s da il y act iv it ie s”
wit h th e Lead CSO. Add it io na ll y , th e Serv ic e ret ai ns th e au th or it y to “ rem ov e” an y
CSO who fai ls to m eet th e Gov ern m en t’s st an da rd s. The se co nt ract ua l pr ov i s i o ns

te nd to su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e Ser v ic e co nt ro ls an d su pe rv is es th e da y -to -d ay

act iv it ie s o f th e al le ge d t or tfe as or
. On th e ot he r ha nd , th e co nt ract sp e ci fie s th at AKAL sh ou ld pr ov id e a

su pe rv is or y st ru ct ur e fo r CSOs , in cl ud in g a Co nt ract Man ag er, Si te Su pe rv is or s, an d
Lead CSOs

. The se co nt ract or em pl oyees are req ui red to pe rfo rm su pe rv is or y du ti es
in cl ud in g “ e n s u r i ng th at al l co nt ract or em pl oyees ad he re[] to th e pe rfo rm an ce

st an da rd s” ; “ ov ers ee[i ng ] an d m an ag [in g] th e da y -to -d ay op erat io ns of th e CSO
Pro gr am fo r th ei r res pe ct iv e di st ric t” ; “ co or di na t[i ng ] d a i l y act iv it ie s at hi s or he r

a p p o i nt ed faci li ty di rect ly wit h th e COTR”; an d, pr ov id in g “ a di rect de gr ee o f

su pe rv is io n fo r th e d ai ly w or k o f th e CSOs .” Thes e co nt ract ua l p ro vi si on s se em to
in di cat e th at th e co nt ra c t o r pr ov id es co nt ro l an d su pe rv is io n ov er th e da y -to -d ay

act iv it ie s o f th e CSO.

4As th e di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed , th e reco rd in th is cas e co nt a i n s ve ry li tt le

ev id en ce ot he r th an th e co nt ract reg ard in g th e le ve l of co nt ro l e xe rci se d by th e
Serv ic e ov e r t h e da y -to -d ay act iv it ie s of th e CSOs

. (R.1 -1 8 at 14 .) Bec au se
di sc ov ery ha d no t y et be gu n at t h e ti m e th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t was
gr an te d, no ev id en ti ary fact s ot he r th an th e co nt ract te rm s were pr es en te d reg ard in g
th e da il y in te ract io n be twee n th e Serv ic e an d CSOs at th e Ann is to n co ur th ou se
. Nor

w e r e an y fact s pr es en te d ab ou t th e ro le th e Serv ic e m ay ha ve ha d in th e sp e c i f i c
in ci de nt s at is su e in th e co m pl ai nt

. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Free m an , we fin d th e te rm s
of th e co nt ract a l o n e in su ffi ci en t to an swe r th e qu es ti on of whe th er th e Serv ic e

ex erci se d c on tro l o ve r th e da y -to -d ay act iv it ie s of th e CSO. W e can no t s ay th at no
ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact ex is ts as to whe th er th e CSO is a fed eral em pl oyee fo r
FTCA pu rp os es
. And , we ha ve reco gn iz ed th at , whe re, as he re, th e in qu iry ne ces sa ry

to res ol ve de fen da nt ’s m ot io n wil l r e s o l v e b o th th e qu es ti on of su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on an d a ne ces sa ry el em en t of th e to rt cl ai m , di sc ov e r y may be ne ces sa ry
pr io r to res ol ut io n of th at m ot io n. Se e La wr en ce v. Dun ba r , 9 19 F.2 d 15 25 , 15 30 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) ; W

il li ams on v. Tu cker , 64 5 F .2d 40 4, 4 14 (5t h C ir. 1 98 1)

.

5W e co nc lu de th at , whi le su m m ary jud gm en t m ay be ap pr op ria te in th is cas e in
th e fu tu re, it was pr em at ur el y gr an te d. The refo re, we va cat e th e su m m ary jud gm en t

an d rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rt h e r pr oc eed in gs , in cl ud in g di sc ov ery.
VACATED AN D REMANDED.

6