DOE 1 v. United States

M.D. Georgia

DOE 1 v. United States

DecidedMay 17, 2023

Docket5:23-cv-00003

StatusUnknown

This text of DOE 1 v. United States (DOE 1 v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DOE 1 v. United States, (M.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

JOHN DOE 1, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-3 (MTT) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER The plaintiffs in this Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) case are minor children who suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their government-employee caregivers at the Robins Air Force Base Child Development Center West (“CDCW”). Doc. 1. The government moved to dismiss and argued the FTCA’s intentional tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), preserves the government’s sovereign immunity and thus dismissal is warranted on jurisdictional grounds. Doc. 6. In response, the plaintiffs argue only that because the government voluntarily undertook an affirmative duty to care for children, that duty was breached when the children in its care suffered physical and emotional abuse—and is therefore “independent” of the 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) excepted conduct. Doc. 12-1. On May 12, 2023, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint citing “newly discovered facts” that were disclosed during a May 9, 2023 plea hearing in a related criminal case. Doc. 19. But, as the government notes in its response, the plaintiffs do not explain what those “newly discovered facts” may be, nor do they attach a proposed amended complaint to their motion. Doc. 20 at 1. Accordingly, the plaintiffs shall supplement their motion to amend with a proposed amended complaint by May 24, 2023. The government shall supplement their response by May 31, 2023. The plaintiffs may reply, if they choose to do so, by June 7, 2023. Finally, as directed at oral argument, the parties’ supplemental briefing on Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988), and the Eleventh Circuit’s subsequent application of that case in Alvarez v.

United States, 862 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2017), remain due May 19, 2023. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of May, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION

JOHN DOE 1, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-3 (MTT) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________ )

ORDER The plaintiffs in this Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) case are minor children who suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their government-employee caregivers at the Robins Air Force Base Child Development Center West (“CDCW”). Doc. 1. The government moved to dismiss and argued the FTCA’s intentional tort exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), preserves the government’s sovereign immunity and thus dismissal is warranted on jurisdictional grounds. Doc. 6. In response, the plaintiffs argue only that because the government voluntarily undertook an affirmative duty to care for children, that duty was breached when the children in its care suffered physical and emotional abuse—and is therefore “independent” of the 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) excepted conduct. Doc. 12-1. On May 12, 2023, the plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint citing “newly discovered facts” that were disclosed during a May 9, 2023 plea hearing in a related criminal case. Doc. 19. But, as the government notes in its response, the plaintiffs do not explain what those “newly discovered facts” may be, nor do they attach a proposed amended complaint to their motion. Doc. 20 at 1. Accordingly, the plaintiffs shall supplement their motion to amend with a proposed amended complaint by May 24, 2023. The government shall supplement their response by May 31, 2023. The plaintiffs may reply, if they choose to do so, by June 7, 2023. Finally, as directed at oral argument, the parties’ supplemental briefing on Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988), and the Eleventh Circuit’s subsequent application of that case in Alvarez v.

United States, 862 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2017), remain due May 19, 2023. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of May, 2023. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

DOE 1 v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-1-v-united-states-gamd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack