19-1147 Huntress v. United States
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of April, two thousand twenty.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________
William L. Huntress, Acquest Development, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 19-1147
United States of America,
Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: MICHAEL B. SMITH (Jonathan D. Lupkin, on the brief), Lupkin PLLC, New York, NY.
Bradley R. Cahoon, Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT.
Gary T. Cornwell, The Cornwell Law Firm, Wimberley, TX.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: CHARLES S. JACOB, Assistant United States Attorney (Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Oetken, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs-Appellants William Huntress and Acquest Development, LLC
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal from an order of the district court (Oetken, J.)
dismissing their complaint against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in concluding
that their claims, which allege that the government wrongfully prosecuted
Plaintiffs, were foreclosed by the discretionary function exception to the Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and
issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision.
When considering the dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), “we review factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “A case is properly dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction . . . when the district court lacks the statutory or
constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Id. The “plaintiff asserting subject
matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that it exists.” Id.
Plaintiffs brought their complaint under the FTCA, which provides
jurisdiction in the federal courts and waives the sovereign immunity of the United
States in claims involving injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act[s] or
3 omission[s]” of government employees, subject to certain exceptions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(b)(1). One such exception is found in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), known as the
“discretionary function exception,” which exempts from the FTCA’s grant of
jurisdiction “[a]ny claim . . . based upon the exercise or performance or the failure
to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal
agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved
be abused.” Id. § 2680(a). Accordingly, courts must dismiss claims based on the
performance of discretionary functions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Fazi v. United States, 935 F.2d 535, 539 (2d Cir. 1991).
The discretionary function exception applies when two conditions are met.
First, the challenged acts must “involve[] an element of judgment or choice.”
Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536 (1988). Second, the judgment must be
“of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield,”
meaning the conduct is a “governmental action[]” or “decision[] based on
considerations of public policy” or susceptible to policy analysis. Id. at 536–37;
see also United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 325 (1991). “[T]he purpose of the
exception is to prevent judicial second-guessing of legislative and administrative
4 decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium
of an action in tort.” Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 323 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
On its face, the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that EPA agents
wrongfully procured and prosecuted indictments against Plaintiffs. See, e.g.,
App’x at 13 (“The government’s conduct in indicting Bill Huntress and Acquest . . .
was unlawful.”); App’x at 31 (“Not once, but twice, the EPA procured indictments
of Bill Huntress and his company based on [its allegedly unconstitutional]
‘interpretation’” of the federal Clean Water Act); App’x at 48 (“By this Complaint
Plaintiffs respectfully allege that the EPA’s act of ‘making an example’ of Bill
Huntress, and ‘hitting him as hard as possible’ – by indicting him, publicly
accusing him of being a felon, destroying his ability to conduct his business, and
subjecting him to possible incarceration in a federal penitentiary – even though a
step down from crucifixion, is a Constitutionally unacceptable means for the EPA
to make the populace ‘really easy to manage.’”). These allegations, which are
grounded in “an agency’s decision . . . to prosecute or enforce, whether through
civil or criminal process,” clearly involved “decision[s] generally committed to an
5 agency’s absolute discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).
“[C]ourts have uniformly found” such “quintessential examples of governmental
discretion . . . to be immune under the discretionary function exception.” Gray v.
Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 513 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see also Wang v. United States, 61 F. App'x
757, 759 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary order) (“Conduct taken by law enforcement
agents involving an element of discretion . . . is bulletproof from liability under the
operative discretionary function exception.”).
Plaintiffs contend that the discretionary function provision nevertheless
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
19-1147 Huntress v. United States
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of April, two thousand twenty.
PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________
William L. Huntress, Acquest Development, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 19-1147
United States of America,
Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: MICHAEL B. SMITH (Jonathan D. Lupkin, on the brief), Lupkin PLLC, New York, NY.
Bradley R. Cahoon, Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C., Salt Lake City, UT.
Gary T. Cornwell, The Cornwell Law Firm, Wimberley, TX.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: CHARLES S. JACOB, Assistant United States Attorney (Christopher Connolly, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Oetken, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs-Appellants William Huntress and Acquest Development, LLC
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal from an order of the district court (Oetken, J.)
dismissing their complaint against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in concluding
that their claims, which allege that the government wrongfully prosecuted
Plaintiffs, were foreclosed by the discretionary function exception to the Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and
issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision.
When considering the dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), “we review factual findings for clear error and legal
conclusions de novo.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “A case is properly dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction . . . when the district court lacks the statutory or
constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Id. The “plaintiff asserting subject
matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that it exists.” Id.
Plaintiffs brought their complaint under the FTCA, which provides
jurisdiction in the federal courts and waives the sovereign immunity of the United
States in claims involving injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act[s] or
3 omission[s]” of government employees, subject to certain exceptions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(b)(1). One such exception is found in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), known as the
“discretionary function exception,” which exempts from the FTCA’s grant of
jurisdiction “[a]ny claim . . . based upon the exercise or performance or the failure
to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal
agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved
be abused.” Id. § 2680(a). Accordingly, courts must dismiss claims based on the
performance of discretionary functions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Fazi v. United States, 935 F.2d 535, 539 (2d Cir. 1991).
The discretionary function exception applies when two conditions are met.
First, the challenged acts must “involve[] an element of judgment or choice.”
Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536 (1988). Second, the judgment must be
“of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield,”
meaning the conduct is a “governmental action[]” or “decision[] based on
considerations of public policy” or susceptible to policy analysis. Id. at 536–37;
see also United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 325 (1991). “[T]he purpose of the
exception is to prevent judicial second-guessing of legislative and administrative
4 decisions grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium
of an action in tort.” Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 323 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
On its face, the gravamen of Plaintiffs’ complaint is that EPA agents
wrongfully procured and prosecuted indictments against Plaintiffs. See, e.g.,
App’x at 13 (“The government’s conduct in indicting Bill Huntress and Acquest . . .
was unlawful.”); App’x at 31 (“Not once, but twice, the EPA procured indictments
of Bill Huntress and his company based on [its allegedly unconstitutional]
‘interpretation’” of the federal Clean Water Act); App’x at 48 (“By this Complaint
Plaintiffs respectfully allege that the EPA’s act of ‘making an example’ of Bill
Huntress, and ‘hitting him as hard as possible’ – by indicting him, publicly
accusing him of being a felon, destroying his ability to conduct his business, and
subjecting him to possible incarceration in a federal penitentiary – even though a
step down from crucifixion, is a Constitutionally unacceptable means for the EPA
to make the populace ‘really easy to manage.’”). These allegations, which are
grounded in “an agency’s decision . . . to prosecute or enforce, whether through
civil or criminal process,” clearly involved “decision[s] generally committed to an
5 agency’s absolute discretion.” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).
“[C]ourts have uniformly found” such “quintessential examples of governmental
discretion . . . to be immune under the discretionary function exception.” Gray v.
Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 513 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see also Wang v. United States, 61 F. App'x
757, 759 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary order) (“Conduct taken by law enforcement
agents involving an element of discretion . . . is bulletproof from liability under the
operative discretionary function exception.”).
Plaintiffs contend that the discretionary function provision nevertheless
should not apply to bar claims alleging unconstitutional or illegal conduct,
because such conduct is necessarily outside the “permissible” exercise of
judgment. Plaintiffs’ Br. at 22–23. To be sure, as the district court recognized,
“[i]t is, of course, a tautology that a federal official cannot have discretion to
behave unconstitutionally or outside the scope of his delegated authority.”
App’x at 64 (quoting Myers & Myers, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 527 F.2d 1252, 1261
(2d Cir. 1975)). But mere conclusory assertions of unconstitutionality cannot
carry Plaintiffs’ burden of establishing jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint,
construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, fails to provide factual
6 allegations that would permit the Court to find that the alleged conduct fell
outside the scope of the discretionary function exception. We therefore find that
the allegedly wrongful conduct, as described in Plaintiffs’ complaint, involved an
exercise of discretion and was susceptible to policy analysis. Accordingly, the
district court did not err in holding that Plaintiffs’ claims were foreclosed by the
discretionary function exception to the FTCA.
Conclusion
We have reviewed the remainder of Plaintiffs’ arguments – including that
Plaintiffs’ claims fall within and are specifically authorized by the law enforcement
proviso of the intentional tort exception – and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court