Garling v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3997
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Garlings sued the United States under the FTCA for damages arising from a 2007 EPA raid and subsequent investigation of Energy Laboratories, Inc. (ELI) in Casper, Wyoming.
- District court dismissed the FTCA action as time-barred; Garlings appeal arguing the conduct was a continuing tort or that equitable tolling should apply.
- Facts alleged: EPA raid on Oct. 30, 2007; Garlings lost their employment; EPA-CID investigation continued; Garlings sought and received FOIA responses between 2011 and 2013; EPA terminated the investigation in Oct. 2012.
- FTCA administrative claim was filed May 12, 2013; EPA denied; Garlings filed suit March 9, 2015, asserting seven claims including tortious investigation, false imprisonment/arrest, abuse of process, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy.
- Court held sovereign immunity barred the claims, thus no subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal was required for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FTCA waives sovereign immunity for the seven claims. | Garlings contend FTCA waiver applies to their claims. | United States argues § 2680 exceptions bar waiver. | Sovereign immunity bars all seven claims. |
| Whether the discretionary function exception bars the claims. | Garlings contend no discretionary barriers to liability. | EPA’s SDWA enforcement involved discretionary judgment worthy of protection. | Discretionary function exception (2680(a)) applies; claims barred. |
| Whether defamation falls under the intentional tort exception to FTCA waiver. | Garlings allege defamation by EPA officials. | Defamation is an intentional tort excluded from waiver under 2680(h). | Defamation claim barred by 2680(h). |
| Whether false arrest/imprisonment and abuse of process claims survive under the law-enforcement proviso. | Garlings label claims as such to fit 2680(h) proviso. | Substance governs; claims arise from discretionary investigation and do not meet statutory quia. | Claims fail under law-enforcement proviso; barred. |
| Whether conspiracy claim can be maintained under FTCA. | Conspiracy under Wyoming law may be actionable. | No underlying tort actionable; FTCA does not waive immunity for conspiracy. | Conspiracy claim barred; no underlying waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FTCA waivers require consent and exceptions determine jurisdiction)
- United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807 (1976) (sovereign immunity and waiver principles for FTCA)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (consent prerequisite for suit under FTCA)
- Aviles v. Lutz, 887 F.2d 1046 (10th Cir. 1989) ( FTCA exceptions and subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2004) (state substantive law and FTCA application)
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (discretionary function analysis framework)
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-part test for discretionary function exemption)
- Millbrook v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1441 (2013) (law-enforcement proviso waives immunity for six intentional torts)
- Milligan v. United States, 670 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2012) (recasting negligence as intentional tort to invoke proviso)
- Denius v. Dunlap, 330 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2003) (substantive focus in applying 2680(h) proviso)