Millbrook v. United States
133 S. Ct. 1441
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Millbrook, a federal prisoner, sues the United States under the FTCA for assault and battery by corrections officers.
- District Court dismissed and the Third Circuit affirmed, following its Pooler v. United States precedent limiting the law enforcement proviso.
- FTCA waives sovereign immunity for certain intentional torts but preserves immunity for others under §2680(h) and applies a law enforcement proviso.
- The proviso cross-references §1346(b), requiring acts or omissions occur within the scope of the officer's office or employment.
- This Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the proviso’s reach and held it extends to acts within the scope of employment regardless of investigative activity.
- The case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §2680(h) extend the law enforcement proviso beyond arrests/searches to all acts within an officer’s scope? | Millbrook contends the proviso applies to any intentional tort by any officer within scope, not limited to investigative acts. | United States argues the proviso applies only to torts occurring during searches, seizures, or arrests. | Yes; proviso extends to acts within the scope of employment, regardless of investigative activity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pooler v. United States, 787 F.2d 868 (3d Cir. 1986) (narrow interpretation that proviso applies only during searches, seizures, arrests)
- Orsay v. United States Dept. of Justice, 289 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (proviso limited to course of investigative or law enforcement activities)
- Ignacio v. United States, 674 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (proviso waives immunity for specified torts regardless of investigative activity)
- Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008) (statutory language plain; construed against narrowing text)