943 F. Supp. 2d 285
D.P.R.2013Background
- Paret-Ruiz sues the United States under the FTCA for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution (and related claims) following his criminal case.
- Paret-Ruiz was indicted and convicted for conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine; the First Circuit reversed due to insufficient evidence of a conspiracy, finding the conspiracy existed only with an undercover DEA agent.
- The government previously moved to dismiss certain claims; the court granted dismissal as to some defendants and injuries, but denied dismissal for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and related claims under the FTCA at that stage.
- The government now moves to dismiss arguing discretionary function immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) and the law enforcement proviso at § 2680(h).
- Plaintiff contends that § 2680(h) waives immunity for intentional torts by law enforcement and that the actions were not discretionary, especially if perjury occurred to obtain the indictment.
- The court concludes the discretionary function exception does not bar the FTCA claims and denies the motion to dismiss on these grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 2680(a) discretionary function bar FTCA claims here? | Paret-Ruiz argues discretionary function does not apply to his intentional tort claims. | Government contends discretionary function immunity bars the claims. | No; discretionary function does not bar these FTCA claims. |
| Does § 2680(h) law enforcement proviso waive immunity for these claims? | Law enforcement proviso applies to intentional torts by officers. | Provision does not apply or is outweighed by discretionary function constraints. | The law enforcement proviso supports waiver for six intentional torts, including malicious prosecution. |
| Are the false arrest/imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims plausible on a Rule 12(b)(6) standard? | Facts suggest perjury and lack of probable cause; claims survive to discovery. | Plaintiff failed to state plausible claims at pleading stage. | Claims remain plausible; dismissal denied at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (two-part test for discretionary function exception)
- Barbioni v. United States, 132 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 1997) (broad discretion for law enforcement in enforcing the law)
- Horta v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2 (1st Cir. 1993) (discretion protects how to fulfill duty to enforce law)
- Kelly v. United States, 924 F.2d 355 (1st Cir. 1991) (discretionary function protects enforcement decisions)
- Sutton v. United States, 819 F.2d 1289 (5th Cir. 1987) (early law enforcement proviso context)
- Nguyen v. United States, 556 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2009) (tension between § 2680(a) and § 2680(h) in practice)
- Limone v. United States, 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009) (First Circuit adopting mixed approach on 2680(a)/(h))
- Reynolds v. United States, 549 F.3d 1108 (7th Cir. 2008) (perjury and non-discretionary conduct not shielded)
- United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (contemporary view on conflict between 2680(a) and 2680(h))