Milligan v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4457
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Operation Falcon III across 24 states led to thousands of fugitive arrests; Milligan mistaken for another individual due to clerical autofill linking Milligan/Staps warrant data to Milligan’s identifying info.
- Metro Warrants Division processed warrants, created arrest folders; a data-entry clerk auto-filled Milligan’s data from an existing Milligan record, causing erroneous linkage to the Milligan/Staps warrant.
- Two Metro Warrants Division clerks and the Bureau misforwarded and filtered warrant data, contributing to an arrest file for Milligan/Staps despite incorrect personal details.
- On Oct. 24, 2006, Milligan was arrested under a warrant; arrest file lacked the actual warrant; a clerk confirmed the warrant by name and birth date without reviewing the warrant.
- Fox 17 covered the operation and Milligan’s arrest; footage aired Nov. 2, 2006, portraying Milligan’s arrest and stating warrants were in hand; a cease-and-desist letter followed in Nov. 2006.
- Milligans filed FTCA and defamation/false light claims in Oct. 2007; district court dismissed FTCA claims for lack of jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Sinclair on defamation/false light.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA discretionary function exception applies | Metro's warrant execution was non-discretionary policy-driven | Metro's actions were discretionary under Gaubert analysis | Discretionary function exception bars FTCA jurisdiction |
| FTCA intentional tort exception §2680(h) applicability | Arrest, false imprisonment, and related acts constitute law enforcement torts | Milligan’s claims are not properly within 2680(h) scope due to negligence framing | No 2680(h) jurisdiction; negligent acts not within law-enforcement carve-out |
| Fair report privilege for defamation | Sinclair’s report contained false statements about Milligan | report was a fair and accurate summary of an official action | Fair report privilege applies; no actual malice shown |
| Actual malice standard under fair report privilege | Fox 17 acted with reckless disregard | No evidence of actual malice; minor inaccuracies permissible | Plaintiffs cannot prove actual malice; privilege stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-prong discretionary function analysis for FTCA)
- Rosebush v. United States, 119 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 1997) (identifies Gaubert framework and discretion in actions)
- Mesa v. United States, 123 F.3d 1435 (11th Cir.1997) (discretion in locating and identifying arrest subjects tied to policy considerations)
- Satterfield v. United States, 788 F.2d 395 (6th Cir.1986) (look to substance of claim, not pleadings, for § 2680(h) scope)
- Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989) (reckless disregard standard for actual malice in defamation)
- Lambertson v. United States, 528 F.2d 441 (2d Cir.1976) (look to substance of claim for FTCA exemptions)