Opinion ID: 796150
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of the negligent guard theory

Text: 23 The negligent guard theory is a theory of liability under the FTCA over which the district court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction. See Coulthurst, 214 F.3d at 109 (holding that a negligent guard theory would not fall under the discretionary function exception because [s]uch negligent acts neither involve an element of judgment or choice within the meaning of Gaubert nor are grounded in considerations of governmental policy). Therefore, Triestman's complaint should not have been dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Aurecchione, 426 F.3d at 638 (holding that a plaintiff's complaint survived Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal where the plaintiff made a colorable pleading of subject matter jurisdiction upon which the district court could have relied to adjudicate the complaint). 24 While expressing no ultimate view of the merits of the negligent guard theory in this case, or even of its capacity to withstand summary judgment, we believe the claim is not so meritless that it can now be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Aurecchione, 426 F.3d at 638-39 (noting that, at the Rule 12(b)(1) stage of litigation, it is not necessary for the district court to determine which party shall ultimately prevail) (citing Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683 (The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claim[]. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.)). 25 The complexity of the negligent guard theory in this case is such, moreover, that we believe a claim of this sort is best made with the assistance of counsel. Hence, we recommend that the district court, on remand, appoint counsel to aid Triestman in pursuing this claim. Cf. Mosseri v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 104 F.3d 356 (2d. Cir. 1996) (unpublished) (noting that full briefing before the district court is . . . desirable and therefore encourag[ing] the district court to . . . appoint counsel for the pro se litigant). 26 Furthermore, we decline at this time to rule on the justiciability or merits of the theory of liability that Triestman has explicitly presented to us, i.e., that FCI Ray Brook's staffing policy was itself negligent. We do so decline because, if the negligent guard theory can be made on remand, the answer that the defendants might give to such a claim—insofar as it touches on the clarity of the rules with which they were complying—may affect the propriety of a dismissal, pursuant to the discretionary function exception, of Triestman's negligent policy claim. Thus, in view of the possibly inextricable relationship between the negligent guard and negligent policy theories of liability, we believe it would be inappropriate to rule on these theories in piecemeal fashion. 27