Payton v. United States
Decision Date | 29 March 1979 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 78-533-P. |
Citation | 468 F. Supp. 651 |
Parties | Douglas Glynn PAYTON, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Edward L. Hardin, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs.
William A. Kimbrough, U. S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jeffrey Axelrad, Emilia M. DeMeo, Dept. of Justice, Washington D. C., for defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
In 1977, Thomas Warren Whisenhant was convicted of the murder of Sheryl Lynn Payton, the plaintiffs' decedent.
This is a wrongful death action in which the plaintiffs allege the United States negligently reduced the sentence of Whisenhant and negligently granted him a parole. Plaintiffs assert that this court has jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671-2680.
The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint asserts three grounds: (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; (2) plaintiffs allege no actionable duty owed by defendant to plaintiffs; and (3) plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to Count VI of the complaint. Agreeing that it is without jurisdiction in this apparent case of first impression, this court does not reach the issues presented by grounds (2) and (3).
The so-called "discretionary function" exception to federal tort liability of § 2680(a) was construed in Dalehite v. United States, supra. Dalehite was an attempt to recover damages for the death of plaintiffs' decedent caused by explosions of fertilizer at Texas City, Texas in 1947, in which many people were killed and much of Texas City destroyed. The plaintiffs claimed negligence on the part of the federal officials and employees involved in producing and distributing the fertilizer "at the instance, according to the specifications of and under the control of the United States." 346 U.S. at 18, 73 S.Ct. at 959, 97 L.Ed. at 1432. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the District Court's award of damages to the plaintiffs. The Court held, id. at 24, 73 S.Ct. at 962, 97 L.Ed. at 1434, that the District Court was without jurisdiction because, id. at 37, 73 S.Ct. at 969, 97 L.Ed. at 1441, "the cabinet-level decision to institute the fertilizer export program was a discretionary act . . .."1 within the meaning of § 2680(a). The Court did not define the limits of the discretion exempted from liability by § 2680(a). It did state Id. at 35-36, 73 S.Ct. at 968, 97 L.Ed. at 1440-1441. It stated that the Id. at 34, 73 S.Ct. at 967, 97 L.Ed. at 1440.
In Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 841, 88 S.Ct. 76, 19 L.Ed.2d 106 (1967), the plaintiff sought to recover for damages to his business caused by the failure of the United States Attorney to arrest and prosecute members of a civil rights group who allegedly had illegally conspired to boycott the plaintiff's store after his service as a member of a federal jury which returned a verdict for the white defendant in a civil rights damage suit brought by a black plaintiff. In concluding that the United States was insulated from liability by § 2680(a) "for exercising the discretion inherent in the prosecutorial function of the Attorney General," 375 F.2d at 248, the court rejected the notion that its determination could be governed by hard and fast rules of decision. "It must be remembered that the question at hand here is the nature and quality of the discretion involved in the acts complained of." (emphasis added) Id. at 246.
The court then examined the "nature and quality" of the Attorney General's prosecutorial discretion. The court pointed to factors which, in its view, require that such discretion be absolute (and stated):
In Radford v. United States, 264 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1959), the complaint charged that officers or enlisted personnel of the United States Army entered into a conspiracy resulting in the plaintiff's loss of her position with the United States. The claim was held barred by the "discretionary function" exception of § 2680(a). The court said that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not subject "the United States to a claim of the kind asserted here, that, as a result of a conspiracy to cause plaintiff's discharge, plaintiff was discharged by the officer or agent of the United States charged with the duty of determining whether a person in its employ should or should not be discharged." 264 F.2d at 710.3
In J. H. Rutter Rex Mfg. Co., Inc. v. United States, 515 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff employer sought damages under the Tort Claims Act for a claimed unreasonable delay of the National Labor Relations Board in securing compliance with a reinstatement order. The reason for the delay was the decision of the NLRB to assign the case to an inexperienced employee who was told to handle a smaller case first to gain experience. The NLRB office was understaffed during the relevant time frame. The court held that the decision 515 F.2d at 99.
The fundamental question is whether Congress intended the parole decisions of the former Board of Parole to be subject to judicial review of the kind sought here. The court must therefore examine "the nature and quality" of the discretion entrusted to the Board. Smith v. United States, supra, 375 F.2d at 248.
The Board of Parole (now the United States Parole Commission), an agency of the Department of Justice, consisted of "eight members . . . appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." 18 U.S.C. § 4201 (former section).4 The Board's parole decisions were governed by 18 U.S.C. § 4203(a) (repealed by Pub.L. 94-233 in 1976):
The regulations issued under the former parole statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 4201-4210, described the functions and duties of the Parole Board as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SECURITIES & EXCH. COM'N v. Paro
... ... Ackerman, Donald R. Haberle, Richard L. Carter, Defendants ... No. 79-CV-70 ... United States District Court, N. D. New York ... March 29, 1979. 468 F. Supp. 636 ... ...
-
Beck v. Kansas Adult Authority
...The trial judge, Chief Judge Virgil Pittman of the Southern District of Alabama, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Payton v. United States, 468 F.Supp. 651 (S.D.Ala.1979). A panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. Payton v. United States, 636 F.2d 132 (5th Cir.1981). Rehearing e......
-
Payton v. U.S.
...appellants' decedent. Relief is sought by the victim's husband and children against both prison and parole officials. The trial court, 468 F.Supp. 651, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We The question presented is whether the alleged conduct by personnel of the United States Board of Par......
-
Payton v. U.S.
...court reversed the district court's decision. Payton v. United States, 636 F.2d 132 (5th Cir. 1981). Finding that the district court, 468 F.Supp. 651, construed the exclusion too broadly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. FACTS In 1975 and 1976, Thomas ......