Federal Tort Claims Act – Page 7

1. Whether this Court should resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal, created by the Ninth Circuit panel decision in this matter, as to whether federal agents have “discretion” to arrest an individual without probable cause, for purposes of sovereign immunity under the “discretionary function” doctrine of the Federal Tort Claims Act?

2. Whether this Court should resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeal as to whether a law enforcement officer’s pre-arrest consultation with a prosecutor, standing alone, entitles the officer to qualified immunity?

3. Given the federal agents’ testimony that there were not any “positive identifications” of Petitioners, contradictory to what the agents told the tribal prosecutor, whether this Court should remand pursuant to this Court’s recent holding in Tolan v. Cotton, — U.S. –, 134 S.Ct. 1861 (2014), to ensure that the Court of Appeals properly viewed all evidence in the light most favorable to the Petitioners?

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses FTCA Claim against US for Failure to Stop Drunk Driving Death on the Rosebud

May 27, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Sorace v. United States (D.S.D.):

8 US Motion to Dismiss

14 Sorace Opposition

15 US Reply

18 DCT Order

Update in Black v. US — Tort Claims Related to Shooting by Tribal Police

April 17, 2014April 22, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the updated materials in Black v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

39 Amended Complaint

46 Kitsap County Motion to Dismiss

53 Joint Tribal Motion to Dismiss

62 DCT Order Dismissing Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office

Only the tribal defendants remain in the case. Prior post on this matter here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects FTCA/Bivens Claims against Federal & Tribal Officers

February 10, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the unpublished opinion in Dupris v. McDonald.

An excerpt:

In 2006, Jesse Dupris and Jeremy Reed (the “Plaintiffs”) were arrested on tribal charges for assaults they did not commit. In 2008, they commenced this action against the members of the federal Task Force that arrested them and the United States under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and Plaintiffs have appealed. We affirm, concluding that: (1) the Plaintiffs’ claims against two members of the Task Force are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) the remaining individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) the United States is immune from liability under the FTCA pursuant to the discretionary function exception.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Slip-and-Fall Action against Indian Health Service in Eagle Butte

December 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Gunville v. United States (D. S.D.):

16 US Motion for Summary J

20 Gunville Response

26 US Reply

27 DCT Order Granting Summary J to Government

Federal Court Issues Opinion on Scope of White Earth Tribal Police Authority as Federal Officers under FTCA

December 6, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Strei v. Blaine (D. Minn.):

61 MJ Order Granting Motion to Substitute Parties

112 DCT Order Affirming MJ Order

From the DCT Order:

Plaintiff Nathan Strei brings claims against five Defendants in this action, including tort claims against John McArthur and Merlin Deegan in both their official capacities as White Earth tribal police officers and their personal capacities. McArthur and Deegan moved to substitute the United States as the proper defendant for the common law tort claims brought against them, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The Magistrate Judge granted the motion for substitution, and Strei objects. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s determination that McArthur and Deegan were acting within the scope of their employment as federal employees at the time of the events giving rise to Strei’s tort claims was neither erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the Court will affirm the Magistrate Judge’s July 11, 2013 order.