Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/836/721/420171/
Timestamp: 2020-01-25 02:02:35
Document Index: 358495937

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1346', '§ 1346', '§ 2680', '§ 1311', '§ 9603', '§ 9603', '§ 1346', '§ 1251', '§ 1252', '§ 1311', '§ 905', '§ 35', '§ 2680', '§ 1346', '§ 1983']

K.w. Thompson Tool Company, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant, Appellee, 836 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1988) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › First Circuit › 1988 › K.w. Thompson Tool Company, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant, Appe...
K.w. Thompson Tool Company, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant, Appellee, 836 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1988)
US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 836 F.2d 721 (1st Cir. 1988) Heard Nov. 6, 1987. Decided Jan. 14, 1988
Plaintiff-appellant, K.W. Thompson Tool Company, Inc. (KWT), filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, against the United States, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and six individual former or present EPA employees, based upon alleged negligent acts and/or omissions of defendants in connection with a criminal prosecution instituted against KWT and three of its officers. With plaintiff's consent, the district court dismissed the EPA and EPA employees as defendants. The United States filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court found that one claim, Count III, did not fall within the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) and that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), barred the remainder of KWT's claims and granted the motion to dismiss. K.W. Thompson Tool Company, Inc. v. United States, 656 F. Supp. 1077 (D.N.H. 1987). Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of its complaint.1 We affirm.
On July 1, 1985, pursuant to a plea agreement, KWT pled guilty to Counts 4-18 (negligent discharge of pollutants into a water of the United States, in violation of 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) and 1319(c) (1)), Count 44 (disposal of hazardous substances without a permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 9603(c)), and Count 46 (failure to notify appropriate government agency of release of specified hazardous substances without a permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 9603(b)). In exchange for these guilty pleas, the United States dismissed with prejudice Counts 1, 2, 3, 19-43, 45, and 47-50 with respect to KWT, and all counts were dismissed with respect to the corporate officers. KWT was ordered to pay a total fine of $75,000 and was placed on probation for a period of one year or until the fine was paid. KWT contends that its decision to plead guilty to the above-detailed counts was a "business judgment" made to avoid loss of its federal license to manufacture firearms and to avoid further expense and loss of employee time and effort. KWT does not concede that it was, in fact, guilty of these or any of the charges on which it was indicted.
656 F. Supp. at 1080-81. The FTCA suit followed.2 The government has not asserted that the guilty plea is a collateral estoppel bar to any of the issues in this action. See generally, 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 4474 at 759-761 (Supp.1987). The only issue, therefore, is the application of the discretionary function exception.
Three Supreme Court cases have addressed the issue of the application of section 2680(a) to an FTCA action. The first is Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S. Ct. 956, 97 L. Ed. 1427 (1953). The case arose out of an explosion of two ships which leveled the port of Texas City, Texas, and killed and injured many people. Fertilizer had been loaded aboard two ships for shipment to Europe under a program instituted by the United States to increase the food supply in areas under post-war military occupation. "This fertilizer had been produced and distributed at the instance, according to the specifications and under the control of the United States." Id. at 18, 73 S. Ct. at 956. The fertilizer, which had been sold to the French Government had been loaded on the ships by independent stevedores hired by the French. The theory of liability was
Id. at 23, 73 S. Ct. at 961.
The Court focused on the words of section 2680(a) and its legislative history. It first noted that its decisions "have interpreted the Act to require clear relinquishment of sovereign immunity to give jurisdiction for tort actions." Id. at 31, 73 S. Ct. at 965. This is followed by the statement: "One only need read Sec. 2680 in its entirety to conclude that Congress exercised care to protect the Government from claims, however negligently caused, that affected the governmental functions." Id. at 32, 73 S. Ct. at 966. The Court explained that the discretion protected by section 2680(a) was "the discretion of the executive or the administrator to act according to one's judgment of the best course...." Id. at 34, 73 S. Ct. at 967. The holding of the Court is that the discretionary function exception applies to subordinates as well as policymakers:
Id. at 35-36, 73 S. Ct. at 968 (footnotes omitted). The reach of the holding to subordinates was somewhat curtailed by the statement that "[t]he decisions held culpable were all responsibly made at a planning rather than operational level...." Id. at 42, 73 S. Ct. at 971. There was a trenchant dissent by Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Douglas and Clark.
The next case in the triumvirate is Indian Towing, Inc. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S. Ct. 122, 100 L. Ed. 48 (1955). Writing for a majority of five, Justice Frankfurter held that the United States was liable for the negligence of the Coast Guard in maintaining a lighthouse beacon near the mouth of the Mississippi. The Coast Guard had built the lighthouse and maintained it. Ships relied on it. As a result of the light going out, plaintiff's ship ran aground and was damaged. The government conceded that the discretionary function exception was not involved. It argued that, since under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) the United States can only be held liable for activity for which a private individual would be liable, suit was improper because private persons do not operate lighthouses. The Court rejected this argument and held the government liable under the FTCA. It stated the issue as one of liability at the "operational level" of government activity, citing to Dalehite, 346 U.S. at 42, 73 S. Ct. at 971. It pointed out that "it is hornbook tort law that one who undertakes to warn the public of danger and thereby induces reliance, must perform his 'good Samaritan' task in a careful manner." 350 U.S. at 64-65, 76 S. Ct. at 124. The Court held:
350 U.S. at 69, 76 S. Ct. at 126-27. In the paragraph immediately following this holding, the Court held that Dalehite was not controlling, stating: "The differences between this case and Dalehite need not be labored. The governing factors in Dalehite sufficiently emerge from the opinion in that case." Id. (footnote omitted). Not surprisingly, Justice Reed, who authored the majority opinion in Dalehite, dissented. He was joined by three other justices.
The final case in this line is United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 104 S. Ct. 2755, 81 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1984). It was a unanimous opinion authored by then Chief Justice Burger. The question was whether the United States could be held liable under the FTCA for the negligence of the Federal Aviation Administration in failing to inspect two aircraft for fire and safety hazards before certifying the planes for use in commercial aviation. In the two cases consolidated for appeal, the Ninth Circuit had rejected the discretionary function exception to the FTCA and held that the United States was liable under the California "Good Samaritan" rule. Id. at 801-03, 104 S. Ct. at 2758-59. The Court first examined in detail the Federal Aviation Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. It noted that by regulation the FAA "made the applicant itself responsible for conducting all inspections and tests necessary to determine that the aircraft comports with FAA airworthiness requirements." Id. at 805, 104 S. Ct. at 2760. As in Dalehite, the Court then examined the wording and legislative history of the FTCA and the discretionary function exception to it. The Court was impressed by the testimony of a government witness before the House Committee on the Judiciary that section 2680(a) was "designed to preclude application of the Act to a claim based upon an alleged abuse of discretionary authority by a regulatory or licensing agency...." And "[i]t is neither desirable nor intended that the constitutionality of legislation, the legality of regulations, or the propriety of a discretionary administrative act should be tested through the medium of a damage suit for tort." Id. at 809-10, 104 S. Ct. at 2762. The Court lauded Dalehite 's examination of the nature and scope of section 2680(a), quoted Dalehite 's holding, 346 U.S. at 35-36, 73 S. Ct. at 967-68, and rejected the argument that Dalehite had been eroded by Indian Towing and Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Union Trust Co., 95 U.S.App.D.C. 189, 221 F.2d 62, summarily aff'd sub nom. United States v. Union Trust Co., 350 U.S. 907, 76 S. Ct. 192, 100 L. Ed. 796 (1955). The Court stated: "While the Court's reading of the Act admittedly has not followed a straight line, we do not accept the supposition that Dalehite no longer represents a valid interpretation of the discretionary function exception." 467 U.S. at 811-12, 104 S. Ct. at 2763. The Court stressed that the government conceded that the discretionary function exception was not implicated in Indian Towing.3 It also stated, "the summary disposition in Union Trust Co. cannot be taken as a wholesale repudiation of the view of Sec. 2680(a) set forth in Dalehite." 467 U.S. at 812-13, 104 S. Ct. at 2764 (footnote omitted). It is fair to conclude that Indian Towing should no longer play a role in determining the application of section 2680(a); Dalehite and Varig are now the beacon cases.
Building on and refining Dalehite, the Court pointed to the following factors as determinative of whether the discretionary function exception barred suit under the FTCA. The basic inquiry is "whether the challenged acts of a government employee--whatever his or her rank--are of the nature and quality that Congress intended to shield from tort liability." 467 U.S. at 813, 104 S. Ct. at 2764. The discretionary function exception "plainly was intended to encompass the discretionary acts of the Government acting in its role of regulator of the conduct of private individuals." Id. at 813-14, 104 S. Ct. at 2764. The Court then turned to the FAA certification process involved in the two cases. It noted first that the Secretary of Transportation had the duty, under the applicable statute, "to promote safety in air transportation by promulgating reasonable rules and regulations governing the inspection, servicing and overhaul of civil aircraft," id. at 816, 104 S. Ct. at 2766, and that the statute provided that the manner in which this was done was committed to the discretion of the Secretary. Id. The Secretary developed a system whereby the responsibility for conforming to FAA regulations was imposed upon the manufacturer and operator with the FAA retaining the responsibility for policing compliance. Compliance review was accomplished by a spot-check system. Id. at 816-17, 104 S. Ct. at 2765-66. The Court held:
It follows that the acts of FAA employees in executing the "spot-check" program in accordance with agency directives are protected by the discretionary function exception as well. See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. at 36, 73 S. Ct. at 968.
Id. at 819-20, 104 S. Ct. at 2767-68.
In reviewing a ruling dismissing a complaint, all well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true. Pujol v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 829 F.2d 1201, 1202 (1st Cir. 1987). The complaint here consists of forty-three paragraphs of general allegations and twelve specific counts. Counts I, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII allege that the EPA, four named employees, and its former administrator, William Ruckelshaus, breached a "ministerial" duty to properly train supervisory personnel and subordinates and supervise subordinates in the investigation of alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and in implementing and following internal EPA procedures. Count X also alleges that Ruckelshaus breached his duty "to ensure that his public stance on gun control was not employed as an impermissible basis upon which EPA decisions were made."
It is important to point out what the complaint does not allege. There is no claim that any section of the Water Pollution and Prevention Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1369, or any EPA regulations issued thereunder were violated by the defendants. There is no allegation that the EPA or NHWSPCC exceeded its authority.4 KWT does not claim that it was not polluting the waters involved, only that the pollution was not as bad as the EPA charged.
33 U.S.C. § 1252(a). The provisions for standards and enforcement are found in 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311-1319. There can be no question that the law directing the EPA to develop comprehensive programs for water pollution control and the statutory provisions for standards and their enforcement invoke the use of agency discretion. The only thing mandatory is that comprehensive programs for water pollution control be developed. The development and administration of such programs depend upon agency discretion.
In Shuman v. United States, 765 F.2d 283 (1st Cir. 1985), we applied the Dalehite-Varig principles to a negligence action for asbestos-produced injuries to a shipyard worker. An FTCA suit had been brought against the United States for shipowner negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). The claim of negligence was predicated on an alleged duty under the Walsh-Healey Act, 41 U.S.C. § 35(e), to warn of the dangers involved in working with asbestos or to issue regulations governing its use. We concluded that Walsh-Healey required the exercise of discretion by the Navy in the formulation, application, and enforcement of safety measures for workers and that the duty to comply with safety standards was imposed on the government contractor. We concluded that the safety standards issued by the government were advisory only.
Other circuits have followed Dalehite-Varig in considering the application of section 2680(a). Relying on Varig, the Third Circuit held that the Atomic Energy Commission's decisions about the method and manner of plant inspections were committed to its discretion. Merklin v. United States, 788 F.2d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 1986). The Ninth Circuit has held that under the principles of Varig and Dalehite, "[t]he acts of OSHA inspectors in executing agency directives are protected by the discretionary function exception." Cunningham v. United States, 786 F.2d 1445, 1447 (9th Cir. 1986). In Wysinger v. United States, 784 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir. 1986), the court held that a governmental decision not to have a lifeguard at a swimming site in a national forest was one within the discretionary function of the agency. The court noted, inter alia, that the basic thrust of Dalehite "was completely reaffirmed" in Varig. Id. at 1253. After a careful analysis of Varig, the Sixth Circuit held that section 2680(a) barred an FTCA suit by an injured worker alleging negligent inspection of and failure to provide safety training in the rail yard where he worked. The yard was owned by the United States and operated by Chrysler Corporation, plaintiff's employer. Feyers v. United States, 749 F.2d 1222, 1226 (6th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125, 105 S. Ct. 2655, 86 L. Ed. 2d 272 (1985). In concluding that a claim against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was barred by the discretionary function exception, the Third Circuit used language that is applicable here:
General Public Utilities Corp. v. United States, 745 F.2d 239, 244 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1228, 105 S. Ct. 1227, 84 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1985).
Decisions concerning when, whether and whom to prosecute have traditionally been considered discretionary and have been held to fall within the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868, 871 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S. Ct. 175, 93 L. Ed. 2d 111 (1986); Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 513-14 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100, 104 S. Ct. 1593, 80 L. Ed. 2d 125 (1984); Bernitsky v. United States, 620 F.2d 948, 955 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 870, 101 S. Ct. 208, 66 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1980); Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 247-48 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 841, 88 S. Ct. 76, 19 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1967). All the components of the final determination--whether, when, whom and how--reflect the decision-maker's judgment of how best to enforce compliance and to deter misconduct in others. We would be engaging in judicial "second guessing," as well as trespassing upon an executive function, were we to interfere with the prosecutorial decision-making process.
We agree with the district court that Count III, which alleges obstruction of justice by the EPA through one of its employees, fails to state a civil cause of action under New Hampshire law and hence does not fall within 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). 656 F. Supp. at 1083-84.
Plaintiff's original complaint included claims based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and named additional state and private defendants. The amended complaint, which is the one before us, dropped the section 1983 claim and the additional defendants
Several cases indicate that if the claims are barred by the discretionary function exception, the court is without subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 800 F.2d 1187, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Berkovitz by Berkovitz v. United States, 822 F.2d 1322, 1325 (3d Cir. 1987), petition for cert. filed, 56 U.S.L.W. 2053 (Sept. 25, 1987). This is logical but it results in an anomaly. The rule is that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. If, however, the government can waive the discretionary function exception, then either Sec. 2680(a) does not go to subject matter jurisdiction or constitutes an exception to the rule that jurisdiction cannot be waived
It has been held that implicit in Varig and Dalehite is the proposition that a "decision cannot be shielded from liability if the decisionmaker is acting without actual authority." Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 800 F.2d 1187, 1196 (D.C. Cir. 1986)