Moss v. United States
| Citation | 895 F.3d 1091 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17-1928,17-1928 |
| Parties | Swan B. MOSS, III, Individually and as Co-Administrator of the Estate of G.Y.M., Deceased and on behalf of Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of G.Y.M. Estate of G.Y.M.; Gay Cunningham Moss, Individually and as Co-Administrator of the Estate of G.Y.M., Deceased and on behalf of Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of G.Y.M. Estate of G.Y.M.; Kerri Basinger, Individually and as Administratrix on behalf of Shane Edward Basinger Estate on behalf of Jadyn Rhea Basinger Estate on behalf of Kinsley Ann Basinger Estate; Anthony Lynn Shumake, Administrator of the Estates of Robert Shumake, deceased, Wilene Shumake, deceased, and N.S., deceased, and on behalf of Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Robert Shumake, deceased, Wilene Shumake, deceased, and N.S., deceased Estate of Robert Shumake Estate of Wilene Shumake Estate of N.S; Tara Roeder, Administratrix of the Estate of Deborah Busby Roeder, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Deborah Busby Roeder Estate of Deborah Busby Roeder; Natisha L. Rachal, on behalf of T.A.; Jerry Don McMaster, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Debra Wynne McMaster and his Minor Children, A.C.M. and E.C.M. Estate of Debra Wynne McMaster on behalf of A.C.M. on behalf of E.C.M.; Christy Pugh Basinger, on behalf of K S B; Benjamin L. Pate, on behalf of B.L.; Aaron Sultz, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Eric Wayne Sultz, on behalf of The Estate of Eric Wayne Sultz, Deceased, and Statutory Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Eric Wayne Sultz Estate of Eric Wayne Sultz; Tara Roeder, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce Wayne Roeder, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Bruce Wayne Roeder Estate of Bruce Wayne Roeder; Amanda Baker Willis, Individually and as Administrator of the Estates of K.S., deceased, and Julie Freeman, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of K.S. and Julie Freeman Estate of K.S. Estate of Julie Freeman; Judith N. Pate, on behalf of B.L.; Adam Jez, Individually &as Administrator of the Est of Leslie Jez, Decd, obo Est of & Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Leslie Jez, &Adam Jez, Individually &as Administrator of the Est of KJ, Decd, obo Est & Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of KJ Estate of KJ Estate of Leslie Jez; Susan Johnson, Administrator of the Estate of Sheri Wade, Deceased, on behalf of the Estate of Sheri Wade, and on behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Sheri Wade Estate of Sheri Wade; Candace Smith, individually and as Administratrix on behalf of Anthony Keith Smith Estate on behalf of Joseph Paul Smith Estate on behalf of Katelynn Nicole Smith Estate; Theresa Roeder, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Esther Kay Roeder, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Esther Kay Roeder Estate of Esther Kay Roeder, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America; United States of America, acting by and through the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, also known as Department of Agriculture, also known as U.S. Forest Service, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Sarah A. Kellogg, Mel C. Orchard, III, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Lance Lee, Attorney, Lance Lee, Attorney-at-Law, Texarkana, TX, Melody H. Piazza, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Little Rock, AR, James L. Wilkes, II, WILKES & MCHUGH, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Swan B. Moss, Gay Cunningham Moss.
Leland H. Ayres, Brittany L. Myers, AYRES & SHELTON, Shreveport, LA, Todd Benson, AYRES & SHELTON, Shreveport, LA, Sarah A. Kellogg, Mel C. Orchard, III, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Melody H. Piazza, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Kerri Basinger, Candace Smith.
Noah Wallace Drew, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Sarah A. Kellogg, Mel C. Orchard, III, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Melody H. Piazza, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Lynn Shumake.
Sarah A. Kellogg, Mel C. Orchard, III, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Melody H. Piazza, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Little Rock, AR, Michael Chad Trammell, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Texarkana, AR, James L. Wilkes, II, WILKES & MCHUGH, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Tara Roeder, Theresa Roeder.
Sarah A. Kellogg, Mel C. Orchard, III, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Melody H. Piazza, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Little Rock, AR, Rendi Beth Wiggins, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Natisha L. Rachal, Jerry Don McMaster, Christy Pugh Basinger, Benjamin L. Pate, Judith N. Pate.
Sarah A. Kellogg, Mel C. Orchard, III, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Melody H. Piazza, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Little Rock, AR, Richard H. Mays, RICHARD MAYS LAW FIRM, Heber Springs, AR, W. Kelvin Wyrick, Sr., Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant Aaron Sultz.
William David Carter, Sr., MERCY & CARTER, Texarkana, TX, Sarah A. Kellogg, Mel C. Orchard, III, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Melody H. Piazza, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant Amanda Baker Willis.
Mickey Buchanan, Ashdown, AR, Sarah A. Kellogg, Mel C. Orchard, III, SPENCE LAW FIRM, Jackson, WY, Melody H. Piazza, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Little Rock, AR, Michael Chad Trammell, TRAMMELL & PIAZZA, Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Adam Jez, Susan Johnson.
Deborah Groom, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, Patrick Nemeroff, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee United States of America
Deborah Groom, Mark W. Webb, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, Patrick Nemeroff, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee United States of America, Acting By and Through the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
This case arises from the tragic flooding of the Little Missouri River in the Albert Pike Recreation Area ("Albert Pike") which is located in the Arkansas portion of Ouachita National Forest. Albert Pike is an outdoor camping and recreation site covering over two hundred acres of land, including portions of the Little Missouri River. On the night of June 11, 2010, an intense storm system caused rapid and serious flooding of the river. The rising water submerged several campsites within Albert Pike, resulting in the death of twenty campers.
This appeal stems from eleven consolidated lawsuits alleging negligence and malicious conduct by the United States related to the development and maintenance of Albert Pike. The district court1 granted the United States’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). After a careful review of the record, we affirm.
Albert Pike is a large outdoor camping and recreation site. Winding through the site is the Little Missouri River, which gives visitors the opportunity to engage in popular recreational activities including fishing, canoeing, and swimming. The site also contains fifty-four campsites placed over four loops, marked as Loops A, B, C, and D. In 2010 it cost prospective campers $10 to secure a campsite overnight in Loops A, B, and C, and $16 to secure a site in Loop D. Loop D’s higher cost was in part due to its developed campsites, which included electrical and water hookups for RVs.
The Loop D campsites were constructed as part of a renovation and expansion project for Albert Pike launched by Congress in 2001. The project allocated over $600,000 to renovate sites in Loop C and to build Loop D campsites. The redevelopment project was headed by District Ranger James Watson. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, required Watson to prepare an environmental assessment of the project. See 36 C.F.R. § 218.2. As part of that assessment, Watson put together a team including two "watershed specialists": Ken Luckow, a soil scientist, and Alan Clingenpeel, a hydrologist.
Luckow and Clingenpeel were each consulted for their opinion as to whether any of the proposed campsites in Loop D would fall within a floodplain. Luckow, the soil scientist, prepared an initial report that concluded that "most of the area where the new campsites are proposed ... should be considered as being within the 100-year floodplain." As a result, he recommended that any campsite in Loop D should be primitive. He explicitly recommended that any campsite should lack electrical and water hookups. He also recommended placing signs to warn campers of potential flooding.
Ranger Watson wanted to build developed campsites within Loop D, in part due to a desire to put the appropriated funds to good use and in part to meet public expectations surrounding the project. Presented with Luckow’s position, Watson sought a second opinion. Watson took Clingenpeel—the hydrologist—in person to the planned site for Loop D. Watson then asked him if he believed the proposed campsite would fall within the 100-year floodplain. Clingenpeel visually estimated the floodplain using the "double bankfull" method (which Clingenpeel himself describes as only a "quick estimate" of the floodplain). Relying on that estimate, Clingenpeel told Watson it was unlikely there would be flooding issues if all renovations took place above the sighted floodplain.
Watson prepared a draft environmental assessment to submit for the project. The draft environmental assessment was circulated to various Forest Service offices, as well as Luckow and Clingenpeel. The environmental assessment partially included Luckow’s floodplain analysis, but ultimately contradicted Luckow by stating that the proposed Loop D campsites would not fall within the 100-year floodplain. Despite the environmental assessment’s final conclusion that the campsite would not fall within a floodplain, the environmental assessment still recommended posting signs to warn of flash floods....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eyck v. United States, 4:19-CV-4007-LLP
...moving to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), a party "may assert either a ‘facial’ or ‘factual’ attack on jurisdiction." Moss v. United States , 895 F.3d 1091, 1097 (8th Cir. 2018). A facial attack on jurisdiction "is based on the complaint alone or on undisputed facts in the record." Harris v. P......
-
Bourassa v. United States
...moving to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), a party "may assert either a ‘facial’ or ‘factual’ attack on jurisdiction." Moss v. United States , 895 F.3d 1091, 1097 (8th Cir. 2018). A facial attack on jurisdiction "is based on the complaint alone or on undisputed facts in the record." Harris v. P......
-
Reg'l Home Health Care, Inc. v. Azar
...4 F.3d at 593. A factual challenge invokes matters outside the pleadings to examine the propriety of jurisdiction, Moss v. United States , 895 F.3d 1091, 1097 (8th Cir. 2018), and the plaintiff loses the benefit of favorable inferences from its factual allegations, Titus , 4 F.3d at 593 n.1......
-
Christopherson v. Bushner
...34 at 9 n.2.) In a factual attack, the Court "may look outside the pleadings to affidavits or other documents." Moss v. United States, 895 F.3d 1091, 1097 (8th Cir. 2018). A factual attack does not convert a Rule 12(b)(1) motion into one for summary judgment. Id. (citation omitted). Instead......