Sanders v. United States

Decision Date30 August 2019
Docket Number No. 18-1941, No. 18-1939, No. 18-1936, No. 18-1938, No. 18-1948, No. 18-1940, No. 18-1943, No. 18-1932, No. 18-1946, No. 18-1933, No. 18-1944, No. 18-1942,No. 18-1931, No. 18-1935, No. 18-1937, No. 18-1945,18-1931
Citation937 F.3d 316
Parties Felicia SANDERS, individually and as Legal Custodian for K.M., a minor, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Jennifer Pinckney, Personal Representative of the Estate of Clementa Pinckney, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Jennifer Pinckney, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Jennifer Pinckney, individually and as Parent, Natural Guardian and Next Friend of M.P., a minor, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Tyrone Sanders, Personal Representative of the Estate of Tywanza Sanders, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Felicia Sanders, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Anthony Thompson, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Myra Singleton Quarles Thompson; Kevin Singleton, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Myra Singleton Quarles Thompson, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Polly Sheppard, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Walter B. Jackson, Personal Representative of the Estate of Susie Jackson, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Laura Moore, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ethel Lance, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Daniel L. Simmons, Jr., as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel L. Simmons Sr., Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Shalisa Coleman, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Anthony Thompson, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Arthur Stephen Hurd, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Cynthia Graham Hurd, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Arthur Stephen Hurd, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant. Bethane Middleton-Brown, Personal Representative of the Estate of DePayne Middleton-Doctor, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant – Appellee, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Amicus Supporting Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

ARGUED: William Walter Wilkins, NEXSEN PRUET, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. Thomas George Ward, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Benjamin Softness, KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C. for Amicus Curiae. ON BRIEF: Kirsten E. Small, NEXSEN PRUET, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants Felicia Sanders, Jennifer Pinckney, Tyrone Sanders, Anthony Thompson, Arthur Stephen Hurd, Polly Sheppard, Walter B. Jackson, Laura Moore, Daniel L. Simmons, Jr., Shalisa Coleman, Kevin Singleton, and Bethane Middleton-Brown. Gedney M. Howe, III, Alvin J. Hammer, GEDNEY M. HOWE, III, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants Felicia Sanders, Jennifer Pinckney, Anthony Thompson, Tyrone Sanders, Polly Sheppard, Walter B. Jackson, Laura Moore, Bethane Middleton-Brown, and Kevin Singleton. Andrew J. Savage, III, SAVAGE LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants Felicia Sanders, Shalisa Coleman, Anthony Thompson, Tyrone Sanders, Polly Sheppard, Walter B. Jackson, Laura Moore, Kevin Singleton, and Bethane Middleton-Brown. W. Mullins McLeod, Jr., Jacqueline LaPan Edgerton, MCLEOD LAW GROUP LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants Arthur Stephen Hurd, Anthony Thompson, and Shalisa Coleman. Carl E. Pierce, II, Joseph C. Wilson, IV, PIERCE, SLOAN, WILSON, KENNEDY & EARLY LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant Daniel L. Simmons, Jr. S. Randall Hood, MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina; Sen. Gerald Malloy, MALLOY LAW FIRM, Hartsville, South Carolina, for Appellants Jennifer Pinckney and Anthony Thompson. J. Stephen Schmutz, Charleston, South Carolina; David F. Aylor, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID AYLOR, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellants Anthony Thompson, Arthur Stephen Hurd and Shalisa Coleman. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Joshua M. Salzman, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Jonathan E. Lowy, Mariel Goetz, Joshua Scharff, BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, Washington, D.C.; Scott H. Angstreich, KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Diaz joined. Judge Agee wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

GREGORY, Chief Judge:

On June 17, 2015, Dylann Roof entered Mother Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and opened fire, murdering nine worshipers who had gathered for Bible study: Reverend Clementa Pinckney, Reverend Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Reverend Daniel Simmons, Reverend DePayne Middleton-Doctor, Myra Thompson, Tywanza Sanders, Ethel Lance, Cynthia Hurd, and Susie Jackson. In the weeks following this tragedy, James Comey, then the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), issued a public statement explaining that Roof was prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm and that he was able to purchase the Glock 41 semiautomatic pistol he used in the attacks only because of lapses in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS"). As Director Comey stated, "Dylann Roof, the alleged killer of so many innocent people at the Emanuel AME church, should not have been allowed to purchase the gun he allegedly used that evening."1

These consolidated cases concern the lawsuits brought by survivors and the estates of the deceased victims ("Plaintiffs") seeking to hold the United States liable for negligently performing the Roof background check—a background check that, if performed properly, no one disputes would have prevented Roof from purchasing the firearm he used to commit this atrocity. Following jurisdictional discovery, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on two independent grounds. First, the district court held that the Government was immune from liability under the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Second, the court concluded that the Government enjoyed immunity under the Brady Act’s immunity provision, 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(6). The Plaintiffs now appeal, contending that the district court erred on both grounds.

We agree. Because neither provision affords the Government immunity in this case, we reverse the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
1. The Brady Act and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

Federal law prohibits certain individuals from buying, owning, or possessing a firearm, including anyone who has been convicted of a felony or "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), (3). In 1993, Congress enacted the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, to "prevent convicted felons and other persons who are barred by law from purchasing guns."2 To achieve this objective, the Act required the Attorney General to establish a National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS") that federally licensed firearms dealers and others must use to determine "whether receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate section 922 ... or State law." 34 U.S.C. § 40901(b). If the background check reveals that a transfer would be illegal, the dealer cannot proceed with the transfer. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1).

The FBI was charged with implementing and administering the NICS, which began operating in 1998. See generally National Instant Criminal Background Check System Regulation , 63 Fed. Reg. 58,303 (Oct. 30, 1998). The Brady Act implementing regulations and certain Standard Operating Procedures ("SOPs") spell out the procedures the FBI follows in performing background checks. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 25.1 – 25.11. These regulations and SOPs form the heart of this appeal.

The process begins when a federally licensed firearms dealer initiates the required background check by contacting the FBI’s NICS Operations Center. Id. § 25.6(b). On receiving this inquiry, a representative from the Operations Center must confirm the dealer’s identity and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Panghat v. Balt. Veterans Affairs Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • December 27, 2019
    ...§§ 2671 et seq. "'As a general matter, the United States is immune from suit unless it waives that immunity.'" Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316, 327 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 341 (4th Cir. 2014)); see also Dalehite v. United States, 346 U......
  • Severe v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • October 1, 2021
    ......YOON, F. KHORASHAD, DR. HAHN, Defendants. Civil Action No. SAG-20-3404 United States District Court, D. Maryland October 1, 2021 . . . MEMORANDUM . ... involved be abused.” Sanders v. United States ,. 937 F.3d 316, 327 (4th Cir. 2019) see also 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). ......
  • Clendening v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • November 30, 2021
    ...144 (4th Cir. 2015)."As a general matter, the United States is immune from suit unless it waives that immunity." Sanders v. United States , 937 F.3d 316, 327 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting In re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig. , 744 F.3d 326, 341 (4th Cir. 2014) ). The Federal Tort Claims Act creates ......
  • Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Willis Towers Watson PLC (In re Willis Towers Watson PLC Proxy Litig.)
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 30, 2019
    ......Haley; Dominic Casserley; Jeffrey W. Ubben, Defendants – Appellees. No. 18-1874 United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: May 8, 2019 Decided: August 30, 2019 ARGUED: ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT