Dickson v. United States

Summary

**Key Legal Topics:** Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA); discretionary function exception; intentional tort exception; law enforcement proviso; sovereign immunity; prisoner civil rights. **Holdings:** The Fifth Circuit held that the discretionary function exception barred the plaintiff's negligence claims against the Bureau of Prisons regarding his transfer and placement in general population, as those decisions involved judgment based on public policy. However, the court reversed dismissal of the intentional tort claims (assault, battery, false arrest, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress), ruling that under *Millbrook v. United States*, the law enforcement proviso applies based on the officer's status as a law enforcement officer, not the nature of their activities, and remanded for determination of whether the officers acted within the scope of employment.

Holdings

1. The discretionary function exception applies to BOP decisions regarding transfers and classifications of prisoners, and Dickson failed to allege any violation of a nondiscretionary duty, so the district court properly dismissed the negligence claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Under Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. 50 (2013), the law enforcement proviso applies based on the status of the officer as a law enforcement officer, not on whether they were engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity. The district court erred in applying the outdated status-vs-activities distinction from Cross v. United States. Therefore, the intentional tort claims are remanded for determination of whether the officers were acting within the scope of their employment.
3. Dickson's IIED claim is not barred because the alleged conduct (encouraging suicide, disparaging remarks) is not derivative of assault or false imprisonment, so the claim does not 'arise out of' an excepted tort.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in applying the discretionary function exception to Dickson's negligence claims.
2. Whether the district court erred in applying the law enforcement proviso to Dickson's intentional tort claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded