Court Opinion

ID: 9911766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 20:00:51.026226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:31.071701
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         DEC 20 2023
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT ANDERSON; et al.,                        No.    22-55965

                Plaintiffs-Appellants,          D.C. No.
                                                2:21-cv-09102-VAP-PD
 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                     Argued and Submitted December 7, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: BEA, M. SMITH, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Former residents and patrons of the now-closed George Air Force Base

(George) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm. Because we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, we recount them

here only as necessary.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1.    The United States retains sovereign immunity over Appellants’ claims related

to the use, disposal, and failure to warn of toxic chemicals at George. The Federal

Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for tort claims brought by private

citizens against the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, but retains that immunity for

decisions based upon the exercise of policy-based discretion, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a);

Lam v. United States, 979 F.3d 665, 673–75 (9th Cir. 2020). The parties do not

dispute whether the challenged conduct is “discretionary” but argue over whether

the judgments were “based on considerations of public policy.” Berkovitz by

Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536–37 (1988).

      We hold that they were. Using and disposing of hazardous chemicals at a

military base during a period of active war involves weighing national security,

environmental, and safety considerations. See In re Consol. U.S. Atmospheric

Testing Litig. (Atmospheric Testing), 820 F.2d 982, 993–95 (9th Cir. 1987); see also

Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 511 (1988); OSI, Inc. v. United States,

285 F.3d 947, 953 (11th Cir. 2002); Aragon v. United States, 146 F.3d 819, 826

(10th Cir. 1998). So too does failing to warn of those hazards. Atmospheric Testing,

820 F.2d at 997; Begay v. United States, 768 F.2d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 1985); see

also Loughlin v. United States, 393 F.3d 155, 164 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

2.    Appellants fail to state a claim for failure to clean up the base. Although the

complaint recites a variety of cleanup orders, states that cleanup at George is

                                         2
projected to continue until 2077, and asserts that the Air Force had a duty to clean

up the base, Appellants never pleaded plausible facts showing that the Air Force

disregarded any cleanup order or breached its duty to cleanup in any way. See

Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that a complaint fails to

state a claim if it contains “no cognizable legal theory or an absence of sufficient

facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory”).

3.    The district court appropriately dismissed the complaint without leave to

amend. “In assessing whether leave to amend is proper, courts consider ‘the

presence or absence of undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to

cure deficiencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party

and futility of the proposed amendment.’” United States ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline

Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Moore v. Kayport

Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989)). “Futility of amendment can,

by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59

F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995).

      Appellants have failed to cure deficiencies despite two amendments, and

likely could not plead out of the discretionary function exception even if given leave

to amend. Although “implementation of [a] course of action” is generally not

“shielded by the discretionary function exception,” Whisnant v. United States, 400

F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2005), our law has “made clear that the ‘implementation

                                          3
of a government policy is shielded where the implementation itself implicates policy

concerns,’” Chadd v. United States, 794 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing

Whisnant, 400 F.3d at 1182 n.3). If “there is even one policy reason why officials

may decide not to take a particular course of action to address a safety concern, the

exception applies.” Id. Here, even if granted leave to amend, Appellants likely

could not plead facts showing that the Air Force’s effort to clean up dozens of toxic

chemicals left at George over the course of nearly fifty years was not susceptible to

“even one” policy consideration. Id.; see United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315,

324–25 (1991) (“For a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, it must allege facts

which would support a finding that the challenged actions are not the kind of conduct

that can be said to be grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime.”).

4.    None of the pro se Appellants’ arguments warrant reversal. The discretionary

function exception applies “whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” 28

U.S.C. § 2680(a).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          4