324 F. Supp. 3d 636
D.S.C.2018Background
- Dylann Roof was arrested for unlawful possession of Suboxone on Feb. 28, 2015; incident reports were submitted to FBI systems but contained clerical/location inaccuracies.
- Roof attempted to buy a Glock on Apr. 11, 2015; NICS returned an ambiguous III hit, and NICS placed the transaction in "delayed" status. Roof acquired the gun after three business days when no denial issued.
- NICS examiners lacked access to the FBI's comprehensive N-DEx database, were bound by rigid SOPs (including a single automated fax request to local agencies and prohibition on internet searches), and did not follow up after agency non-responses.
- The examiner sought records from Lexington County and West Columbia per NICS contact lists; Columbia PD (which held the report) was omitted from the list, and the examiner took no further steps.
- Plaintiffs sued the United States under the FTCA alleging negligence by NICS/FBI employees; the government moved to dismiss based on the FTCA discretionary function exception and statutory immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(6).
- After extensive jurisdictional discovery (including first-ever probing of NICS operations), the district court found systemic failures but granted the government's motion to dismiss on immunity and discretionary-function grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA claims are barred by the discretionary-function exception | NICS examiners negligently failed to obtain available records; the conduct was operational, not discretionary | The conduct reflected agency policy choices and SOPs, so discretionary-function exception applies | Granted: claims barred as agency policy choices fall within the discretionary-function exception |
| Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(6) immunizes the government for NICS failures | Plaintiffs: statute doesn't bar an action challenging systemic operation rather than individual employee immunity | Government: statutory immunity shields employees/agency from damages for failing to prevent unlawful firearm transfers | Granted: § 922(t)(6) bars Plaintiffs' claims as within the statute's immunity scope |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery was required before ruling on jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: needed discovery to contest government's factual jurisdictional defenses | Government: argued for dismissal based on legal defenses | Court ordered and relied on extensive jurisdictional discovery; factual disputes resolved by hearing and record |
| Whether South Carolina tort law permits recovery on the merits | Plaintiffs: state law negligence claims are cognizable | Government: argued public-duty rule and other state-law defenses | Not reached: court dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction and statutory immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (discretionary-function exception applies when conduct involves policy judgment)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (distinguishing facial and factual attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187 (when jurisdictional facts disputed court may resolve after discovery)
- Welch v. United States, 409 F.3d 646 (waivers of sovereign immunity construed strictly)
- Lomando v. United States, 667 F.3d 363 (United States may assert defenses available to its employees)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (12(b)(6) plausibility standard)