107 F. Supp. 3d 238
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Wu was killed by Chen in January 2010, about three months after Chen’s release from ICE custody.
- Plaintiffs are the Administrators of Wu’s estate and Wu’s surviving spouse, bringing a FTCA claim against the United States.
- Chen previously attacked Wu in 2006, pled guilty to felony assault, and was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment.
- After serving the 2006 sentence, Chen was repeatedly held and released by ICE and housed in multiple facilities during removal proceedings.
- Chen was placed under an Order of Supervision in 2008 and again in 2009, which required periodic reporting and medical/psychiatric review; Chen failed to report on November 30, 2009.
- Plaintiffs filed suit on May 28, 2013; defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the court granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA jurisdiction for federal-law duties | Clarke argues FTCA covers government duty under federal immigration law to prevent Chen’s murder. | United States contends FTCA waives sovereign immunity only for state-law liability, not federal-law duties. | Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; FTCA does not cover federal-law duties. |
| Discretionary Function Exception | Plaintiff argues duties were non-discretionary and not grounded in policy. | DFE applies because challenged actions were discretionary and policy-based. | DFE bars the claims; court lacks jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980) (sovereign immunity and waiver must be unequivocally expressed)
- Liranzo v. United States, 690 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2012) (FTCA requires state-law liability analysis for government torts)
- Meyer v. United States, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FTCA ‘law of the place’ governs liability; cannot rely on federal-law theories)
- Molchatsky v. United States, 778 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (burden on plaintiff to rebut discretionary-function framework)
- Brotman v. United States, 111 F. Supp. 2d 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (discretionary-function analysis; policy judgments implied when discretion exists)
- Gaubert v. United States, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (presumption that discretion implicates policy judgments; can be overcome)
- Marin v. United States, 814 F. Supp. 1468 (W.D. Wash. 1992) (safety exception not recognized; safety concerns do not defeat DFE)
- Payton v. United States, 679 F.2d 475 (5th Cir. 1982) (distinguishes cases where government undertakes non-mandated services)