Briscoe v. United States
268 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2017Background
- Three men (Briscoe, Watson, Duren) were indicted, pleaded guilty to heroin conspiracy, and were sentenced; pleas included factual proffers admitting guilt.
- FBI Special Agent Matthew Lowry stole and consumed or replaced seized heroin, falsified chain-of-custody records, and later pled guilty to obstruction, falsification, conversion, and possession; he was sentenced.
- After learning of Lowry’s misconduct, the government moved to dismiss the indictments, consented to withdrawal of the guilty pleas, and the district court vacated the convictions in November 2014.
- Plaintiffs filed administrative FTCA claims (denied) and then sued the United States, FBI, DOJ, FBI Acting Director (official capacity), and Lowry (official and individual capacities) alleging negligence, negligent supervision, false imprisonment, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The United States moved to dismiss on jurisdictional and Rule 12(b)(6) grounds (FTCA exclusivity, discretionary-function exception, and failure to state claims). Lowry moved to dismiss official-capacity claims (jurisdiction) and individual-capacity claims (failure to state a claim).
- The court dismissed agency and official-capacity defendants (FTCA permits suit only against United States), granted dismissal of Counts I (negligence), III (false imprisonment), and IV (negligent infliction of emotional distress) against the United States for failure to state a claim, denied without prejudice dismissal of Count II (negligent supervision) to permit limited jurisdictional discovery on whether mandatory FBI directives exist, and deferred ruling on Lowry’s individual-capacity claims pending resolution of Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant under FTCA | Plaintiffs sued agencies and officials in official capacity as permissible FTCA defendants | FTCA waives sovereign immunity only for suits against the United States; agencies/officers in official capacity are not proper defendants | Dismissed FBI, DOJ, McCabe (official), and Lowry (official); United States is sole proper defendant |
| Discretionary-function exception (Count II negligent supervision) | Plaintiffs argue exception inapplicable because (a) supervision was unconstitutional or (b) internal mandatory FBI directives may render conduct nondiscretionary; request jurisdictional discovery | Government contends supervision is discretionary and thus barred by exception | Denied dismissal without prejudice; granted limited jurisdictional discovery (3 interrogatories and 3 document requests) to determine existence of mandatory directives |
| Constitutional-excess argument to defeat discretionary-function exception | Plaintiffs claim supervision violated constitutional protections, so exception shouldn’t apply | Government says plaintiffs didn’t plausibly allege supervisors’ conduct itself violated the Constitution | Court held plaintiffs failed to plead that supervisory acts were themselves unconstitutional; exception not yet resolved pending discovery |
| Merits of tort claims (Counts I, III, IV) | Plaintiffs: Lowry’s tampering caused wrongful incarceration and injuries | Government: plaintiffs can’t show proximate causation or unlawfulness of detention given guilty pleas and lack of specific allegations linking Lowry’s misconduct to convictions | Court dismissed negligence, false imprisonment, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the United States for failure to state a claim (no proximate cause; convictions not alleged to be procured by fraud) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing and plaintiff burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requirements and plausibility)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (discretionary-function exception framework)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (two-part test for discretionary-function exception)
- Ignatiev v. United States, 238 F.3d 464 (D.C. Cir.: jurisdictional discovery on existence of internal mandatory guidelines)
- Loumiet v. United States, 828 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir.: discretionary-function exception does not bar conduct that plausibly exceeds constitutional authority)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (valid indictment conclusively determines probable cause)