Opinion ID: 75780
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Tort Issues

Text: 8 The FTCA does not provide for a complete waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity. The liability of the United States under the FTCA is subject to the exceptions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2680, including the discretionary function exception now at issue. That exception provides that the government is not liable for 9 [a]ny claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused. 10 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). 11 We employ a two-part test for applying the discretionary function exception. First, we ask whether the act involv[es] an element of judgment or choice. U.S. v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 1273, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (quoting Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S. 531, 536, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 1958, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988)); Hughes v. U.S., 110 F.3d 765, 767 (11th Cir.1997). [I]f a `federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow,' there is no judgment or choice involved. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322, 111 S.Ct. at 1273 (quoting Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536, 108 S.Ct. at 1958-59); see also Phillips v. U.S., 956 F.2d 1071, 1076 (11th Cir.1992) (Where there exists a mandatory responsibility, there is no room for a policy choice.). The inquiry focuses on whether the controlling statute or regulation mandates that a government agent perform his or her function in a specific manner. Hughes, 110 F.3d at 768. A decision will be subject to the exception unless `a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action embodying a fixed or readily ascertainable standard. ' Id. (quoting Autery v. U.S., 992 F.2d 1523, 1529 (11th Cir. 1993)). 12 If the conduct does involv[e] an element of judgment or choice, we then look at `whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.' Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23, 111 S.Ct. at 1273 (quoting U.S. v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 813, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2764, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984)). The exception is intended to `prevent judicial second-guessing of legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action in tort.' Id. (quoting Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 814, 104 S.Ct. at 2765). Thus, when properly construed, the exception `protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy.' Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 323, 111 S.Ct. at 1274 (quoting Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 537, 108 S.Ct. at 1959). 13 Under this second-prong of the test we look at whether the questioned act is `susceptible to policy analysis.' Hughes, 110 F.3d at 768 (quoting Powers v. U.S., 996 F.2d 1121, 1125 (11th Cir. 1993)). The exception does not require there to have been actual weighing of policy considerations. Hughes, 110 F.3d at 768. Nor is it limited to decisions at the policy or planning level; it may include day-to-day management. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, 111 S.Ct. at 1275; Hughes, 110 F.3d at 768. We focus on `the nature of the challenged decision in an objective, or general sense, and ask whether that decision is one we would expect inherently to be grounded in considerations of policy.' Autery, 992 F.2d at 1530-31 (quoting Baum v. U.S., 986 F.2d 716, 720-21 (4th Cir.1993)). If the decision is inherently one allowing discretion, we presume that the act was grounded in policy whenever that discretion is employed. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 324, 111 S.Ct. at 1274; Hughes, 110 F.3d at 768.
14 In the face of a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that jurisdiction exists. Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446, 62 S.Ct. 673, 675, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942); Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir.1980). 1 Thus, since the government has asserted lack of subject matter jurisdiction, OSI must prove that the discretionary function exception does not apply to the disposal of the landfill material. It makes two arguments in this regard. First, it argues that the manuals which govern landfill decisions created mandatory obligations for the Air Force, obligations the Air Force failed to fulfill. Second, with respect to LF6, OSI maintains that RCRA creates an alternate mandatory obligation, which the Air Force also failed to fulfill. 15 As a preliminary matter, we find that OSI did not raise this RCRA argument in the district court. As a general rule, an appellate court will not consider a legal issue or theory raised for the first time on appeal. Formby v. Farmers and Merchs. Bank, 904 F.2d 627, 634 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting Lattimore v. Oman Constr., 868 F.2d 437, 439 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam)). We see no reason to warrant departure from the general rule here. The briefing on the discretionary function jurisdictional issue was completed before OSI amended its complaint to include allegations of RCRA violations. More than ten months passed before the motions were ruled upon, yet OSI made no attempt to supplement its briefing. It briefed separately its opposition to summary judgment on the RCRA claims, and incorporated into that brief all earlier arguments made in response to the motion to dismiss. However, it in no way presented to the district court the argument that the alleged RCRA violations overcome the discretionary function exception of the FTCA. Thus we hold that this argument is waived. OSI is limited to the argument that was raised before the district court, namely that the relevant Air Force manuals created a mandatory obligation which overcomes the exception. 16 We thus address the only argument presented to the district court. Two courts have previously considered the same Air Force manuals that governed this situation, reaching opposite conclusions. Compare Clark v. U.S., 660 F.Supp. 1164 (W.D.Wash.1987) (holding that the manuals create a mandatory obligation that overcomes the discretionary function exception), aff'd, 856 F.2d 1433 (9th Cir.1988) (affirming for reasons stated by the district court), with Aragon v. U.S., 146 F.3d 819 (10th Cir.1998) (rejecting the Clark decision and applying the discretionary function exception to Air Force decisions governed by the manuals). We must evaluate the persuasive force for this case of Clark vis-a-vis Aragon . 2 Because significant portions of the rationale applied by Clark have been supplanted by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, we find ourselves in agreement with the Tenth Circuit. Thus, we hold that an agency manual which provides only objectives and principles for a government agent to follow does not create a mandatory directive which overcomes the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. 17 The decision in Clark was rendered in April, 1987, well before the Supreme Court restat[ed] and clarif[ied] the scope of the discretionary function exception. 3 See Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S. 531, 538, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 1959, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988). Berkovitz, and the subsequent opinion in U.S.v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991), clearly establish that the first prong of the exception is satisfied unless a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 534, 108 S.Ct. at 1958. The Clark court recognized that the determination to have a landfill is a discretionary function. 660 F.Supp. at 1176. Nonetheless, the court refused to apply the exception on the grounds that the manuals provide instructions for certain principles to be followed in the decision-making process. Id. As the Tenth Circuit pointed out, however, the manuals state general principles and objectives, which alone, do[] not equate to a specific, mandatory directive. Aragon, 146 F.3d at 826. We agree. We follow the Tenth Circuit and hold that the waste disposal decisions at issue involve an element of judgment or choice. 4 18 In addition, we further agree that the second prong of the discretionary function test is met. Disposal of waste on a military base involve[s] policy choices of the most basic kind. Aragon, 146 F.3d at 826. The nature of the military's function requires that it be free to weigh environmental policies against security and military concerns. We hold that the decisions at issue here reflect the kind of judgment that the discretionary function exception is designed to shield. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23, 111 S.Ct. at 1273. 19 Because the decisions involving the Air Force landfills are subject to the discretionary function exception, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the FTCA claims for lack of jurisdiction. 20