Case Name: KOSAK, Joseph A., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-05-19
Citations: 679 F.2d 306
Docket Number: No. 81-2855
Parties: KOSAK, Joseph A., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.
Judges: Before ALDISERT, WEIS, and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 679
Pages: 306–310

Head Matter:
KOSAK, Joseph A., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.
No. 81-2855.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) April 27,1982.
Decided May 19, 1982.
Rehearing Denied June 24, 1982.
Charles S. Silver, Jeffrey L. Naftulin & Associates, Doylestown, Pa., for appellant.
Peter F. Vaira, U. S. Atty., Walter S. Batty, Jr., Serena H. Dobson, Asst. U. S. Attys., Philadelphia, Pa., Allan L. Martin, U. S. Customs Service, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
Before ALDISERT, WEIS, and BECKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
The question presented by this appeal is whether the provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) that bars claims "arising in respect of . the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs .," 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c), precludes a claim against the United States for negligent damage to property while in the legitimate custody of the Customs Service. We conclude that it does and therefore affirm the judgment of the district court that dismissed appellant's complaint.
I.
On February 28, 1978, Customs Service agents seized certain antiques and objects of art from the home of Joseph Kosak. He was subsequently charged with smuggling goods into the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 545, but was found not guilty. The Customs Service returned the detained property to him but Kosak contended that certain items had been damaged as a result of Customs Service negligence during the detention. Alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), he brought this FTCA action in district court seeking $12,310 in damages. The Government responded that Kosak's claim was barred because it fell under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c). The district court dismissed the complaint.
Section 2680 enumerates several exceptions to the FTCA's general relaxation of tort immunity. Section 2680(c) specifies:
The provisions of this chapter [Tort Claims Procedure] and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to—
(c) Any claim arising in respect of . the detention of any goods or merchandise by any officer of customs....
Finding no decision of this court interpreting this section of the FTCA, appellant invites us to adopt the interpretation of the Second Circuit, as announced in Alliance Assurance Co. v. United States, 252 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1958), which held that § 2680(c) applies only to claims based on injury caused by detention itself and not to losses caused by the Customs Service's negligent handling of goods during detention.
II.
The courts are divided in their interpretations of this section. The divergence stems from the phrase "arising in respect of . . . the detention of any goods . . . . " The Alliance court speculated that the
probable purpose of the exception was to prohibit actions for conversion arising from a denial by the customs authorities . of another's immediate right of dominion or control over goods in the possession of the authorities.... [and not] to bar actions based on the negligent destruction, injury or loss of goods in the possession or control of the customs authorities. .
252 F.2d at 534. Comparing 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b)'s explicit preclusion of actions against the postal system "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission" of mail, the Alliance court reasoned that if Congress had intended to bar actions claiming negligence of the customs officials, it would have done so in like manner. We disagree.
Alliance's rationale ignores the clear language of § 2680(c), the legislative intent, and specific teachings of the Supreme Court regarding interpretation of exceptions to the FTCA. Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute itself.
As in all cases involving statutory construction, "our starting point must be the language employed by Congress," Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 337, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 2330, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979), and we assume "that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used." Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9, 82 S.Ct. 585, 590, 7 L.Ed.2d 492 (1962). Thus "[ajbsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980).
American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, - U.S. -, -, 102 S.Ct. 1534, 1537, 71 L.Ed.2d 748 (1982). In our view, the language of the statute covers all claims arising out of detention of goods by customs officers and does not purport to distinguish among types of harm.
Moreover, the legislative history of § 2680(c) reveals no "clearly expressed legislative intention" contrary to the ordinary meaning of the section's language. The section-by-section analysis contained in the committee report on the bill provides only a brief statement that the group of exceptions that includes the exception for claims arising out of the detention of goods by customs officers covers "claims which relate to certain governmental activities which should be free from the threat of damage suit, or for which adequate remedies are already available." S.Rep.No. 1400, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1946). There is nothing in the legislative history to show that this exemption was to be restricted to claims in conversion.
Our examination of the purposes of the statutory schema reinforces our view. In Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953), the Court makes clear that sovereign immunity is the rule, and that legislative departures from the rule must be strictly construed. The Court observed that the FTCA was an example of the step-by-step legislative relaxation of sovereign immunity and teaches that in interpreting these statutory modifications and their exceptions,
courts include only those circumstances which are within the words and reason of the exception. They cannot do less since petitioners obtain their "right to sue from Congress [and they] necessarily must take [that right] subject to such restrictions as have been imposed." Federal Housing Administration v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242, 251, 60 S.Ct. 488, 493, 84 L.Ed. 724.
So, our decisions have interpreted the Act to require clear relinquishment of sovereign immunity to give jurisdiction for tort actions.
346 U.S. at 31, 73 S.Ct. at 965 (footnotes omitted). Exceptions to the government's relaxation of immunity "are not to be nullified through judicial interpretation, since Congress clearly delineated the areas in which it did not intend to forfeit its immunity from suit." Builders Corp. of America v. United States, 320 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 906, 84 S.Ct. 660, 11 L.Ed.2d 606 (1964).
Reading § 2680(c) in this light, we find no "clear relinquishment of sovereign immunity."
In cases of statutory construction, this Court's authority is limited. If the statutory language and legislative intent are plain, the judicial inquiry is at an end. Under our jurisprudence, it is presumed that ill-considered or unwise legislation will be corrected through the democratic process; a court is not permitted to distort a statute's meaning in order to make it conform with the Justices' own views of sound social policy. See TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153,98 S.Ct. 2279, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978).
Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607, 688, 100 S.Ct. 2844, 2887, 65 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1980) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Appellant's claim arises from detention of goods by a customs officer, and therefore, whether it arises in negligence or in conversion, it is barred by § 2680(c).
III.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), the jurisdictional section of the Federal Tort Claims Act, states:
[T]he district courts . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, ., for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
. The district court did not specify the actual ground for dismissal — whether lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Of itself this ambiguity will not cause us to set aside the district court's order. In light of the bar created by § 2680(c), no set of facts will support the plaintiffs claim. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
. The Supreme Court was presented with an argument similar to Kosak's in Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U.S. 460, 100 S.Ct. 647, 62 L.Ed.2d 614 (1980) (per curiam). Although the Court summarized the conflicting interpretations of § 2680(c), it expressly declined to resolve the conflict. Id. at 462 n.3, 100 S.Ct. at 649 n.3.
A-Mark, Inc. v. United States Secret Service, 593 F.2d 849, 850 (9th Cir. 1978) (per curiam), is in accord with Alliance in that § 2680(c) "reaches only those claims asserting injury as a result of the fact of detention itself where the propriety of the detention is at issue, and does not reach claims where the injury is asserted to result from negligent handling of property in the course of detention." See also A & D International, Inc. v. United States, 665 F.2d 669 (5th Cir. 1982) (accepting the Alliance distinction between losses and wrongful detention).
In contrast, the court in United States v. One (1) 1972 Wood, 19 Foot Custom Boat, FL 8443AY, 501 F.2d 1327, 1330 (5th Cir. 1974) (per curiam), observing that "28 U.S.C. § 2680 specifically prohibits the bringing of any claim arising from the detention of any goods or merchandise by a customs officer," affirmed the denial of a counterclaim for damage to a boat and the loss of its service. The Supreme Court in Hatzlachh appropriately identified this Fifth Circuit decision as one in conflict with Alliance. 444 U.S. at 462 n.3, 100 S.Ct. at 649 n.3. Nevertheless, the court in A & D International took issue with the Supreme Court's categorization, and declared that because the earlier decision dealt with a challenge to the propriety of the Custom Service's storage charges, it involved only detention of property. 665 F.2d at 672-73 & n.2. This explanation appears to us to be based upon a misreading of the earlier decision, for it is clear that the owner of the boat counterclaimed for damage to his property while it was in storage.
See also S. Schonfeld Co. v. SS Akra Tenaron, 363 F.Supp. 1220, 1223 (D.S.C.1973) ("There is nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that erroneous seizure in the inception should be distinguished from improper retention or negligent handling of goods properly seized at the outset.").
. The court's function in interpretation of statutes is also defined in Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430, 101 S.Ct. 698, 701, 66 L.Ed.2d 633 (1981):
When we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete, except "in 'rare and exceptional circumstances.' " TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 187, n.33 [98 S.Ct. 2279, 2298, n.33, 57 L.Ed.2d 117] (1978) (quoting Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60 [51 S.Ct. 49, 50, 75 L.Ed. 156] (1930)). Accord, Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 695 [100 S.Ct. 1945, 1955, 64 L.Ed.2d 611] (1980); Ernst v. Ernst v. Hochfelder, [425 U.S. 185, 214 n.33, 96 S.Ct. 1375, 1391 n.33, 47 L.Ed.2d 668 (1976) ]. No such circumstances are present here, for our reading of the statute is wholly consistent with the history and the purposes of the Securities Act of 1933.