Court Opinion

ID: 2965044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:30.055051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:25.622600
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1983

                                   JOSEPH BARBIONI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________
                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                 ____________________

            Joseph  M.  Jabar  and  Daviau,  Jabar  &  Batten  on  brief   for
            _________________       _________________________
        appellant.
            Jay  P.  McCloskey,  United  States  Attorney,  Frank  W.  Hunger,
            __________________                              _________________
        Assistant Attorney General,  Barbara C. Biddle and  Jennifer H. Zacks,
                                     _________________      _________________
        Department of Justice, Civil Division, on brief for appellees. 

                                 ____________________

                                   December 9, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   After careful review of  the parties'
                      __________

            submissions and the record on  appeal, we affirm the decision

            below  granting  judgment  for the  defendant.1    On appeal,
                                                          1

            appellant  Joseph  Barbioni   ("Barbioni")  argues  that  the

            decision to pursue  a criminal investigation  and prosecution

            against him was improper and entitled him to relief under the

            Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C.   2674, given the

            alleged  fact that  two  witness  interviews  may  have  been

            conducted  in  an  inappropriate  manner.    But  even  where

            discretion  has been  abused, 28  U.S.C.    2680(a)  protects

            those   acts   which   constitute   the   performance   of  a

            discretionary function.   This court has  made it clear  that

            the decision  to investigate  and/or prosecute an  individual

            falls squarely  within the discretionary  function exception.

            See,  e.g.,  Horta  v.  Sullivan,  4 F.3d  2,  21  (1st  Cir.
            ___   ____   ___________________

            1993)("[A]lthough  law enforcement  agents  have a  mandatory

            duty to enforce the law, decisions as to how  best to fulfill

            that  duty  are  protected  by  the  discretionary   function

            exception  to the FTCA.");  Kelly v. United  States, 924 F.2d
                                        _______________________

            355,  362 (1st Cir. 1991)("Since decisions to investigate, or

            not,  are at  the core  of law  enforcement activity,  the []

                                
            ____________________

               1The government  suggests the court  lacks jurisdiction to
               1
            hear this  appeal under  28 U.S.C.    1291, but  we interpret
            Barbioni's  statements in his "Motion to  Alter (Rule 59)" as
            an abandonment of  any claims which may have  been pending at
            the time he filed that  pleading.  Thus, the district court's
            "Judgment" was a  final judgment, as required by  28 U.S.C.  
            1291.

                                         -2-

            challenged  conduct involved  precisely the  kind of  policy-

            rooted decisionmaking that  section 2680(a)  was designed  to

            safeguard.").     Even  an   allegation  that   investigators

            intimidated  and coerced witnesses will not alter the outcome

            of a target's FTCA claim.  Moore v. Valder, 65 F.3d 189, 196-
                                       _______________

            97 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

                 We  do not  address  whether  the malicious  prosecution

            claim otherwise would have had merit.

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________

                                         -3-