Gregory Edison v. United States
822 F.3d 510
9th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Gregory Edison and Richard Nuwintore are federal prisoners assigned to Taft Correctional Institution, a federally owned but contractor-operated prison in California’s San Joaquin Valley where a 2003–2005 outbreak of coccidioidomycosis ("cocci"/Valley Fever) infected many inmates, including both plaintiffs with disseminated disease.
- The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) contracted day-to-day operation and medical care at Taft to private contractors (GEO, later MTC), but reserved rights to construct or modify buildings and to participate in certain policy decisions.
- The BOP coordinated with the CDC on a cocci response but excluded contractors from policy development and shifted to a focus on diagnosis/treatment rather than broad prevention; contractors implemented limited mitigations (more cleaning, flyers, some maintenance changes).
- Plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging failures to warn, to implement preventative/structural protections, and to develop an adequate prevention policy; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the FTCA’s independent-contractor exception.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the independent-contractor exception does not bar FTCA claims based on duties the United States retained or could not practically delegate (e.g., pre-transfer warnings, construction/modification rights, and retained policy-development duties).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA independent-contractor exception bars all claims because BOP delegated day-to-day operations to contractors | Edison/Nuwintore: independent-contractor exception does not shield U.S. from direct liability for duties it retained or could not delegate | U.S.: delegation of prison operation to GEO/MTC means government owes no FTCA duty for these injuries | Court: exception does not bar claims based on duties the U.S. retained or could not practically delegate; dismissal improper as to those duties |
| Whether California law would impose landowner/jailer duties to warn inmates of cocci risk before transfer | Plaintiffs: BOP knew of endemic risk and had duty to warn transferees of hidden hazard | U.S.: contractors handled inmate warnings and health services; BOP disclaimed responsibility | Court: California law imposes a duty to warn of concealed hazards; BOP could not practically delegate pre-transfer warning, so FTCA jurisdiction exists for pre-transfer warning claims |
| Whether BOP retained duty to build/modify structures to protect inmates (e.g., covered walkways) | Plaintiffs: BOP reserved construction/modification authority in contracts and thus retained the duty to implement structural protections | U.S.: day-to-day maintenance and mitigation delegated to contractors so BOP not liable | Court: contractual reservation of construction/modification rights shows BOP retained relevant duty; FTCA claims on failure to build/modify may proceed |
| Whether BOP retained duty to develop adequate cocci-prevention policy (by excluding contractors from policy development) | Plaintiffs: BOP assumed and retained the policy-development role with CDC and excluded contractors, so it remained directly responsible | U.S.: policy and health care overseen by contractors; independent-contractor exception bars suit | Court: BOP’s affirmative retention and exclusion of contractors from policy-making demonstrates a retained duty; FTCA claims based on that retained duty are not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Logue v. United States, 412 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1973) (government may be directly liable for its own negligence despite contractor involvement)
- United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807 (U.S. 1976) (waiver of sovereign immunity under FTCA must be construed with regard to exceptions)
- Yanez v. United States, 63 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing nondelegable duties and FTCA direct liability where government retained safety obligations)
- Autery v. United States, 424 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2005) (FTCA analysis considers state-law duties and whether government retained them via contract or conduct)
- McGarry v. United States, 549 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1976) (examining contractual language and practice to determine retained duties under FTCA)
- Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 123 P.3d 931 (Cal. 2005) (landowner duty to warn invitees of latent/hidden hazards)
- Rowland v. Christian, 443 P.2d 561 (Cal. 1968) (foundation for California’s general duty of care and limits based on public policy)
- Myers v. United States, 652 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2011) (application of peculiar-risk/nondelegable duty doctrines under the FTCA)