Joshua Rich v. United States
811 F.3d 140
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Rich, a 57-year prisoner, was attacked in a recreation cage at USP Hazelton by multiple inmates; a nine-inch knife was recovered; Rich suffered liver laceration and multiple surgeries.
- Rich sued under FTCA alleging prison officials failed to protect him and inadequately screened attackers before placement in the cage.
- The district court dismissed, holding the discretionary function exception barred jurisdiction for both the separation decision and the patdown/search conduct.
- On appeal, the court agrees the separation decision is barred by the discretionary function exception and lacks jurisdiction to review that claim.
- The court vacates in part and remands for discovery on the patdown/search conduct, finding jurisdictional facts intertwined with merits and allowing discovery to determine if more specific directives existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discretionary function exception bars Rich’s separation claim | Rich contends separation was non-discretionary and mandatory | Government argues separation is discretionary under CIM and policy | Discretionary function exception applies; separation claim barred |
| Whether Rich is entitled to discovery on patdown/search adequacy | Discovery could reveal improper searches or missing directives | Patdown performance can be resolved on jurisdictional basis without discovery | Discovery ordered; jurisdictional facts intertwined with merits; remand for discovery on patdowns |
| Whether the patdown/search claim can proceed given possible discretionary bar | Patdowns may not be protected if carelessness or lack of policy controls | Searches fall within discretionary protections | Remand to determine if more specific directives exist and whether discretionary bar applies ultimately |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaubert v. United States, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-prong test for discretionary function exception; judgment and public policy considerations)
- Cohen v. United States, 151 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1998) (prison handling of inmate issues; discretion in security measures)
- Alfrey v. United States, 276 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2002) (recognizes policy-based discretion in prison safety decisions)
- Calderon v. United States, 123 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 1997) (prison security determinations involve policy considerations)
- Durden v. United States, 736 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (denial of jurisdictional discovery reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2014) (discovery may be appropriate when jurisdictional facts are intertwined with merits)
- Coulthurst v. United States, 214 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2000) (discretionary function exception not to shield careless conduct in some contexts)