Opinion ID: 203977
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The FTCA Action.

Text: Following the release of the Durham documents, the plaintiffs filed separate actions in the federal district court. The plaintiffs' complaints adumbrated three types of causes of action: (i) claims against the United States under the FTCA; (ii) Bivens claims against Rico, Condon, and other FBI supernumeraries, see Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBN, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971); and (iii) claims against Walsh and other -11- state actors pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The cases were consolidated. The United States moved to dismiss on the ground that the claims against it were barred by the discretionary function and intentional tort exceptions to the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), (h). The individual defendants moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied these motions. See Limone v. United States (Limone I), 271 F. Supp. 2d 345, 353-57 (D. Mass. 2003) (rejecting discretionary function defense); id. at 36566 (rejecting qualified immunity defense); Limone v. United States (Limone III), 336 F. Supp. 2d 18, 30-31 (D. Mass. 2004) (rejecting intentional tort defense). On a limited interlocutory appeal, we affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. Limone v. Condon (Limone II), 372 F.3d 39, 50 (1st Cir. 2004). The plaintiffs later dropped their claims against the individual defendants (federal and state) and proceeded only on the FTCA claims. Following a 22-day bench trial, the district court found for the plaintiffs (including the family members) on their claims of malicious prosecution, coercive civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent supervision, and loss of consortium. The court awarded total damages in excess of $100,000,000. These timely appeals ensued. -12-