Byron Bedell v. United States
669 F. App'x 620
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Byron Bedell, a federal prisoner, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging the FBI failed to investigate his claims that prison officials tortured him.
- The District Court screened the pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A and dismissed the action with prejudice on May 10, 2016.
- The District Court concluded the discretionary function exception to the FTCA barred jurisdiction.
- Bedell argued the FBI had a mandatory duty to investigate, citing 28 U.S.C. § 535; the court noted § 535(a) uses permissive language (“may investigate”) and § 535(b)’s “shall” applies to reporting duties, not an investigative mandate.
- The Third Circuit exercised plenary review, found no substantial question, and summarily affirmed the dismissal; motions for counsel and record supplementation were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discretionary function exception bars FTCA suit challenging FBI's failure to investigate alleged torture | Bedell: statute/agency policy imposed a mandatory duty on FBI to investigate allegations of torture | U.S.: FBI's investigative decisions are discretionary and protected by the FTCA discretionary function exception | Held: Exception applies; court lacks jurisdiction to hear FTCA claim |
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 535 imposes a mandatory duty to investigate | Bedell: § 535 (and its “shall” language) creates a mandatory investigative duty | U.S.: § 535(a) is permissive (“may investigate”); the “shall” in § 535(b) concerns reporting duties, not investigation | Held: No mandatory duty to investigate under § 535; discretionary conduct governs |
| Whether court may sua sponte consider discretionary function exception | Bedell: (implicit) merits of claim should be reached | U.S.: jurisdictional bar permits sua sponte consideration | Held: Court may consider the exception sua sponte because it is jurisdictional |
| Whether any other relief or record supplementation was warranted on appeal | Bedell sought counsel, to proceed on original record, and to supplement record | U.S.: opposed or not applicable | Held: Appointment of counsel denied; proceeding on original record moot; supplementation denied (no exceptional circumstances) |
Key Cases Cited
- Baer v. United States, 722 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2013) (describing FTCA waiver and discretionary function exception framework)
- Merando v. United States, 517 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2008) (announcing plenary review standard for FTCA dismissals)
- S.R.P. ex rel. Abunabba v. United States, 676 F.3d 329 (3d Cir. 2012) (discussing the two-step discretionary function exception test)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (U.S. 1991) (explaining discretionary function exception protects policy-based governmental decisions)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (recognizing implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Acumed LLC v. Advanced Surgical Servs., Inc., 561 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2009) (standards for supplementing the appellate record)
- CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2008) (treating discretionary function exception as jurisdictional)
- Meritcare Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 166 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1999) (federal courts must address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005) (noting limits where prior circuit precedent was abrogated)