Court Opinion

ID: 2964942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:15.497275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:55.629492
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1651

                         SINFOROSO NIEVES-RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Daniel R. Dominguez, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Israel Roldan Gonzalez on brief for appellants.
            ______________________
            Guillermo Gil, United States  Attorney, and Fidel A. Sevillano Del
            _____________                               ______________________
        Rio, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        ___

                                 ____________________

                                   October 16, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.  We  have reviewed the  briefs submitted by
                 ___________

            the  parties  and  the  record  on  appeal,  and  we  affirm.

            Appellants challenge the lower court's determination that the

            actions of the government in  this case were protected by the

            discretionary function exception  to the Federal  Tort Claims

            Act, 28 U.S.C.    2674 & 2680(a). 

                 A decision constitutes a discretionary function where 1)

            the action involves  an element of choice, and  2) the action

            involves the kind  of judgment Congress intended  to protect.

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

            Congress intended  to  prevent  courts  from  second-guessing

            social,  economic or political  policy decisions made  by the

            other  two branches  of government.   United  States v.  S.A.
                                                  _______________________

            Empresa de Viacao  Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig  Airlines), 467
            ________________________________________________________

            U.S. 797, 814 (1984).  We agree  that the decision to erect a

            steel  pole barrier on  the perimeter of  Punta Borinquen Air

            Base, so as to prevent entry of automobiles onto  the base in

            accidents,  was the  exercise  of a  discretionary  function.

            Certainly no  statute or  regulation  required or  prohibited

            placement  of  the  barrier,  so an  element  of  choice  was

            involved.  Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536.  Further, the decision
                       _________

            was the type of policy decision Congress intended to immunize

            from suit.  Before the  barrier was erected, cars involved in

            accidents in this  spot would commonly  go through the  chain

            link  fence  surrounding  the base.    The  barrier prevented

                                         -2-

            unauthorized cars from entering the secured base.  The courts

            have no place second-guessing military commanders'  decisions

            regarding how best to secure military bases.  Varig Airlines,
                                                          ______________

            467 U.S. at 814.  This court has held that such decisions are

            protected under  the discretionary  function exception,  even

            where they involve  a "'trade-off between greater  safety and

            greater combat effectiveness.'"   Ayer v. United  States, 902
                                              ______________________

            F.2d 1038,  1044 (1st  Cir. 1990)  (quoting  Boyle v.  United
                                                _______  ________________

            Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 511 (1988)).
            __________________

                 Appellants'  second claim  alleges the  government acted

            negligently in  failing to  provide adequate  warning of  the

            barrier;  they challenge the  lower court's ruling  that that

            decision  also was  protected by  the  discretionary function

            exception.   We express no  opinion on this issue,  since the

            lower court alternatively found that even if the decision was

            not protected under 28 U.S.C.    2680(a), the claim failed on

            the merits since the government acted reasonably in providing

            the amount and type of warning given.1
                                                 1

                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________  ___

                                
            ____________________

               1The Magistrate's Opinion  states:   "The government,  the
               1
            defendant  herein, has  provided to  all  those traveling  on
            Hangar Road proper and reasonable notice and warnings, within
            their means."  Mag. Opin. at 27.

                                         -3-