Keller v. United States, 771 F.3d 1021

Background

Plaintiff Charles D. Keller, a federal inmate at USP Terre Haute, was placed in the general population after intake screening and was brutally attacked by another inmate on October 25, 2007, sustaining serious head and facial injuries.
Keller told intake psychologist Dr. Joseph Bleier he suffered mental illness and feared attack; Bleier placed him in general population despite Keller’s reported concerns.
The attack occurred at the base of watchtower 7 between Units 1 and 2; no tower guard observed the beating and it lasted several minutes before Keller was found unconscious.
Keller sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligence by prison staff who violated mandatory regulations and post orders; the district court granted summary judgment for the government based on the FTCA discretionary function exception.
The record available to the courts was heavily redacted (government resisted release on safety grounds), leaving uncertainty about the specific local procedures governing intake screening and yard post orders.
The Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment, concluding the government failed to prove as a matter of law that the discretionary function exception applied, and remanded for further proceedings and discovery.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FTCA discretionary function exception shields the government from liability for inmate-on-inmate violence	Keller: Officials violated mandatory rules/post orders, so their conduct was non-discretionary and not protected	Gov: Discretionary function always bars FTCA claims for inmate violence; officials exercised judgment	Reversed: Exception not shown to apply; cannot as a matter of law shield gov't here
Whether intake psychologist violated mandatory screening procedures in placing Keller in general population	Keller: Dr. Bleier failed to review all medical records/required procedures for PSY ALERT before clearing him	Gov: Bleier followed procedures; no mandatory procedure violated (but did not identify constraints in record)	Remanded: Record insufficient; local mandatory procedures suggested but not in record; further fact-finding required
Whether Unit 1/2 guards violated post orders by failing to monitor assigned yard areas	Keller: Guards were inattentive/lazy and left assigned areas unmonitored, breaching mandatory post orders	Gov: Guards interchangeable; monitoring choices fall within discretion and policy considerations	Remanded: Redactions obscure post orders; evidence supports that guards had assigned zones and may have failed mandatory duties — discretionary exception not established
Whether district court erred procedurally (burden on proof and discovery)	Keller: District court improperly placed burden on him to disprove discretionary function exception and denied requested discovery/appointment of counsel	Gov: N/A (defended summary judgment)	Reversed in part: District court misallocated burden (gov't must prove exception); denial of discovery may have produced an inadequate record — remand for further proceedings and discovery

Key Cases Cited

Parrott v. United States, 536 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2008) (discretionary-function exception does not shield government when guards violate mandatory separation/post orders)
Palay v. United States, 349 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2003) (carelessness by guards not protected by discretionary-function exception; mandatory duties remove discretion)
Gaubert v. United States, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-part test for discretionary-function exception: element of judgment and policy-based decision)
Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (discusses when statutory/regulatory directives remove discretion for FTCA analysis)
Calderon v. United States, 123 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 1997) (permitting discretionary-function protection where officials weighed risks and made policy judgments)
United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963) (prisoners may bring FTCA negligence claims against the United States)