Opinion ID: 2812680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lewis’s Complaint

Text: Here, in his sworn complaint, Lewis alleged that Officer Locker breached a duty of care by not securing him with two hands as they descended the stairs following Lewis’s shower. The relevant prison policy here did not require Locker to secure prisoners with both hands while escorting them from the showers. It required only that Officer Locker hold on to Lewis’s handcuffs, which policy Officer Locker adhered to. Beyond the requirement to hold on to Lewis’s handcuffs, Officer Locker had discretion as to the best way to secure Lewis while escorting him from the showers. The district court thus correctly concluded that the first prong of the discretionary function test was satisfied. See id. at 1341-42. As to the second prong of the discretionary function analysis, both § 4042(a)(2) and the relevant prison policy left room for discretion as to the best way to ensure inmate safety, so there is a “strong presumption” that Officer Locker’s actions were grounded in policy. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 324, 111 S. Ct. at 1274. The fact that Officer Locker was exercising his discretion at the operational level, as opposed to the planning level, does not remove his action from the discretionary function exception. See Cohen, 151 F.3d at 1342. Lewis’s complaint did not allege facts supporting a determination that Officer Locker’s 8 Case: 14-13484 Date Filed: 06/29/2015 Page: 9 of 9 actions were not grounded in the policy of the relevant regulatory regime, see Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 324-25, 111 S.Ct. at 1274-75, and the district court correctly dismissed Lewis’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 2