Huntress v. United States, 19-1147

Plaintiffs William Huntress and Acquest Development sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging EPA agents wrongfully procured and prosecuted indictments under the Clean Water Act and committed unconstitutional/illegal conduct that harmed Plaintiffs.
The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the FTCA’s discretionary function exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the discretionary function exception should not bar claims alleging unconstitutional or illegal conduct and that the law‑enforcement proviso to the intentional tort exception applied.
The Second Circuit reviewed jurisdictional dismissal de novo for legal questions and for clear error on factual findings.
The court held the alleged conduct involved prosecutorial/enforcement judgment calls that are quintessentially discretionary and therefore barred by the discretionary function exception.
The court further held Plaintiffs’ pleading was conclusory and failed to allege facts showing the challenged conduct was outside the scope of lawful discretion; alternative arguments (including the law‑enforcement proviso) were rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FTCA jurisdiction exists where plaintiffs allege wrongful prosecution/enforcement conduct	DFE should not shield unconstitutional or illegal conduct; such claims fall outside the exception	Decisions to investigate/prosecute are discretionary and therefore barred by §2680(a)	DFE applies; prosecution/enforcement decisions are discretionary and preclude FTCA jurisdiction
Whether Plaintiffs pleaded facts showing the conduct fell outside discretionary authority	Allegations of unconstitutional conduct suffice to negate discretion	Allegations are conclusory; plaintiffs must plead facts showing lack of lawful discretion	Court: conclusory assertions insufficient; Plaintiffs failed to meet burden to show jurisdiction
Whether the law‑enforcement proviso to the intentional tort exception applies	Plaintiffs: claims are covered by the law‑enforcement proviso and thus not barred	Government: proviso does not salvage these claims	Court: proviso argument without merit; alternative claims rejected

Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (establishes two‑part test for the discretionary‑function exception)
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (explains that discretionary acts grounded in policy are protected from tort liability)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (decisions to prosecute or enforce are generally committed to agency discretion)
Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal: factual findings for clear error, legal questions de novo)
Fazi v. United States, 935 F.2d 535 (2d Cir. 1991) (claims based on discretionary functions must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (prosecution decisions are quintessential discretionary acts immune under the exception)
Myers & Myers, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 527 F.2d 1252 (2d Cir. 1975) (a federal official cannot have discretion to act unconstitutionally, but plaintiffs must plead facts to show such illegality)