Alvarez vs. United States of America

Filing 13

ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss and Setting Answer Deadline. An Answer is required by September 30, 2024. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 8/28/2024. See attached document for full details. (jl00)

UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT C OU RT FOR TH E
SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF FLORJDA
M iam iD ivision
Case N um ber:23-24130-C lV -M O REN O
VA LERIA ALV A REZ,

Plaintiff,

UN ITED STA TES O F A M ERJCA ,
D efendant.

O R DER D EN YIN G M O TIO N TO D ISM ISS AN D SE TTIN G A N SW ER D EA DLINE
This is a one-countnegligence claim by M s.A lvarez againstthe U nited States regarding

an alleged sexualassaultpep etrated on herby OfficerRyan Seam an in the FederalDetention
Centerin M iam i. The governm entm ovesto dismissthe complaintfiled underthe FederalTort
ClaimsAct,relying on thediscretionary function exception,failureto statea cause ofaction,and

lackofsubjectmatterjurisdicticm.F()rthereasonsthatfollow,theCourtdeniesthemotion.
1.Backuround

M s.A lvarez isa fem ale federalinm aterem anded into the custody ofthe FederalBureau of

Prisons,where she wastransferred to the FederalDetention Centerin M iam i,Florida. Officer
Senman wasemployed by the FederalBureau ofPrisonsasa conrctionalofficerworking atthe
FederalD etention Centerin M iam i.
In M s.A lvarez's w ords,the Bureau ofPrisons has created and m aintained a çssanctuary''
form ale correctionalofficersto sexually assaultand abusefem ale inm ates.In herview ,the sexual
abuseoffem ale prisonersunderB ureau ofPrisonscontrolisEsram pant''butgoeslargely unchecked

as a result of S'culturaltolerance,orchestrated cover-ups and organizationalreprisals of inm ates
who dare to com plain or reportsexualabuse.''
The Prison Rape Elim ination A ct m andates that the Bureau of Prisons conduct nnnual
audits ateach federalprison facility.M s.A lvarez allegesthatthe auditorsCûfailed to interview any

femaleinmatesthatwereinvolvedinorwitnessestogprisonRapeEliminationActqviolationsand
thatthe audits forthe FederalD etention Centerin M inm iare Ctm aterially''incom plete.
The Plaintiff claim s that Officer Seam an is a know n sexual predator to the Federal
D etention Center of M iam i's M anagem entTeam and the Prison Investigative A gencies. PerM s.

Alvarez,Officer Seam an had been investigated on numerous occasions for sex crimes against
fem aleinmates.Fem aleinmateswerereluctantto com eforwardwithinformation onsexualabuse
çsfor fear of reprisal,including,but not limited to,transfer to a differentfacility,disciplinary
segzegation, loss of early release rights, detrimental write-ups, loss of work privileges, arld
interferencewithvocationalskillsprogram s.''TheFederalDetention CenterinM iamihasapolicy
whereby inmates complaining ofm istreatm entby prison officials are rem oved to a localcounty
detention center or a special housing unit,which has purportedly suppressed complaints of
m isconductasthe county facilities do notpennitwork details orvocationaltraining. M s.A lvarez
allegesthatOfEcerSeam an used hisaccessto personalhistory files,telephonecallrecordings,and
personalem ails,giving him additionalleverage to extractsexualfavors and threaten the safety of
M s.Alvarez.

In April2022,OfficerSeam an began working in theAlpha W estUnitwhere M s.Alvarez
waslocated.Hebegan talking with herand bringing herpizza,pineapple,cheesesticks,macand
cheese,and electric cigarettes. By the third w eek of M ay 2022,after allegedly m aking sexually

suggestivecom mentstoher,OfticerSenman ordered M s.Alvareztofollow him tothelastcellon

thetop tierofAlpha W estand informed heritwastim eforherto ûtpay him back''forallofthe
goodshe had broughther. H e then proceeded to have sexualintercourse w ith herw ithoutthe use

ofacondom .Two dayslater,hebroughthertheçsmorningafter''pilland instructedherto swallow
the pillin frontofhim .
On M ay 25,2022,Officer Seam an coerced M s.A lvarez into having sex a second tim e.

Thistim e,heused a condom and placed the condom back in hispocketaflersex,claiming to be
concerned aboutflushing itdown the toilet. OfficerSeam qn instnlcted M s.Alvarez notto tell
anyone so that they w ould not be in trouble. A few days later,M s.A lvarez w as placed in the
SpecialH ousing Unitand intenogated by investigators untilshe confessed to being the victim of
rapes. The investigators'repol'tw as disclosed to Other staff m em bers,and M s.A lvarez w as the

subjectofçlridicule,gossip andharassment''from staffandinmatesalike.M s.Alvarezsaysthat
she did notconsent or give penn
' ission to Offcer Seam an to touch her or engage in any sexual
activity.
II.Claim s

M s.A lvarez's one-cotmt claim is for negligence. She argues thatthe FederalD etention

Center ofM iam i's M anagem entTeam and Prison lnvestigative Agencies owed her a duty to
çsprotectpublic safety by enstuing thatfederalofficers serve their sentences of im prisonm ent in

facilitiesthataresafe,humane,costeffcientandappropriatelysecure''asmandatedbytheBureau
ofPrisons. (quoting FEDERAL BUREAU oF PRISONS,hûps://-

.bop.gov/about/agency/(last

visitedJune 11,2024)).In herview,theBureaubreacheditsdutiesbytsnegligentlysupervising,
m anaging and retaining O ffcer Seam an during her incarceration.'' A dditionally,by providing
Officer Seam an w ith um estricted and unsupervised one-on-one accessto herw hile incarcerated,
despite know ledge ofhispastsexualabuse and harassm entoffem ale inm ates,she arguesthatthe

FederalDepartm entofCorrectionsM anagem entTeam breachedtheirduties.Furtherm ore,in her
view ,theybreachedtheirdutiesbycreating asystem wherevidimsofsexualabuseandharassm ent
are ptm ished for reporting the sexual m isconduct of prison staff by transfer to m ore secure
facilities,rem ovalfrom educationaland vocationalprogram s,placem entin specialhousing units,

loss of early release rights,detrimental write-ups, and lojs ofw ork privileges. M s.Alvarez
delineatesm ore specific allegations ofbreachesunderthe Prison Rape Elim ination A ct.
ln itsM otion to D ism iss,theD efendantarguesthatthe Courtshould dism isstheCom plaint

forfailuretostateaclaim andlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionbecauseM s.Alvarez'sclaimsare
barred by thediscretionary f'
unction exception totheFederalTortClaim sActandthattfley failto
allegeany actionablenegligence.In thegovernment'sview,theFederalToz'tsPlaim Actdoesnot
im pose liability on the governm ent for O fficer Seam an's alleged crim inal acts of ttpersonal

gratification.'' The Bureau ofPrisons deniesthatitknew of any prior misconduct by Officer
Seaman and statesthatitpromptly investigated thisincidentassoon asitfound out.Furtherm ore,
O fficer Seam an resigned, and the Bureau of Prisons refen'
ed the m atler to the Office of the

Inspector Generalfor investigation,including potentialrecomm endation of crim inalpenalties
againstthe officer.
111.L ezalStandard

((TosurviveagRule12(b)(6)qmotiontodismiss,acomplaintmustcontainsufticientfactual

matter,acceptedastrue,to stateaclaim toreliefthatisplausibleon itsface.''Ashcrojtv.Iqbal,
556U.S.662,678(2009)(intelmalquotationsomitted).(1A claim hasfacialplausibilitywhenthe
plaintiffpleads factualcontentthatallows the courtto draw the reasonable inference thatthe
defendantis liable forthe misconductalleged.''1d Ss-l-he plausibility standard is notakin to a
probability requirem ent,butitasksform ore than a sheerpossibility thata defendanthas acted

unlawfully.''ld (emphasisadded)(internalquotationsomitted).SçWhereacomplaintpleadsfacts
thatare m erely consistentw ith a defendant'sliability,itstopsshortofthe line betw een possibility

andplausibilityofentitlementtorelief.''Id (internalquotationsomitted).SçTlnreadbarerecitalsof
the elem entsofa cause ofaction,suppoded by m ere conclusory statem ents,do notsuffice.''fJ.

A motion to dismissforlack ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction pursuantto Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(1)Gtcanbebasedupon eitherafacialorfactualchallengetothecomplaint.''M cElmurray v.
Consol.Gov'tofAugusta-Richmond Cn@.,501 F.3d 1244,1251 (11th Cir.2007). A Ctfacial
attack''on the complaint Clrequiregs) the coul'tmerely to look and see if gthel plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged abasisofsubjectmatterjurisdiction,andtheallegations'inhiscomplaintare
taken astl'
ueforthepurposesofthemotion.''Id (quotingLawrencev.Dunbar,919F.2d 1525,
1529(11th Cir.1990)(internalquotationsomittedl).
By contrast,factualattacksCtchallengetheexistenceofsubjectmatterjurisdiction infact,
irrespective ofthe pleadings,and matters outside the pleadings,such astestimony and aftidavits

areconsidered.''1d (quoting Williamson v.Tucker,645F.2d 404,413 (5th Cir.1981)(internal
quotationsomittedl). çûgflhe districtcoul'
thasthe powerto dismissforlack ofsubjectmatter
jurisdictiononanyofthreeseparatebases;(1)thecomplaintalone;(2)thecomplaintsupplemented
byundisputedfactsevidencedintherecord;or(3)thecomplaintsupplementedbyundisputedfacts
plusthecourt'sresolution ofdisputedfacts.''Id (internalquotationsomitted).dsBecauseatissue

inafactual12(b)(1)motionisthetrialcourt'sjurisdiction itsverypowertohearthecase there
is substantialauthority thatthe trialcourtisfree to weigh theevidenceand satisfy itselfasto the
existence of its power to hear the ca:e.''ld at 412-13. Ctln short,no presum ptive truthfulness
attachesto plaintiff'sallegations,and the existence ofdisputed m aterialfactsw illnotpreclude the

trialcourtfrom evaluatingforitselfthemeritsofjurisdictionialclaims.''161at413.

TheFederalTortClaimsAct(ITTCA'')was(çdesignedtoprovideredressforordinarytorts
recognized by statelaw.''Ochran v.United States,273 F.3d 1315,1317 (11th Cir.2001). It

authorizessubjectmatterjurisdictionforany claimsarisingfrom thefollowing:
(sinjury ...causedbythenegligentorwrongfulactoromissionofanyemployeeof
theGovernm entwhileacting within thescope ofhisoffice oremployment,under
circum stances w here the United States,ifa private person,w ould be liable to the

claim ant in accordance with the 1aw of the place where the act or om ission
occurred.''

28U.S.C.j1346(b)(1).Sçgllqnlessthefactssupportliabili'tyunderstatelaw,thedistrictcoul'
tlacks

subjectmatterjurisdictiontodecideanFTCA claim.''1d.
Nonetheless,theFederalTortClaimsActissubjecttoexceptions,suchasthediscretionary
f'
unction exception,which precludesgovernmentliability forCtgaqny claim based upon....the
exercise or perform ance orthe failure to exercise or perform a discretionary f'unction or duty on
the part of a federal agency or an em ployee of the Governm ent,whether or notthe discretion

involvedbeabused.''28U.S.C.j 2680(a). lftheexception applies,GdtheFTCA claim mustbe

dismissed'forlack ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.''151F.3d 1338,1340 (11th Cir.1998). Cç-l-he
upshotofj2680(a)isthatwhen theUnited States'performanceofaCfunctionorduty'involves
discretion, the fact that the discretion w as m isused or abused in any w ay does not lead to

liabilityg.j''Shiversv.UnitedStates,1F.4th924,928(11th Cir.2O21).
The Suprem e Court has dçenunciated a tw o-pal'
t test for detennining w hether the
discretionary f'
unction exception bars suit ...in a given case.''Cohen v. United States,151 F.3d

1338,1341(11thCir.1998).First,theCourtconsiders(tthenatureoftheconductanddeterminegsj
whetheritinvolvesanelementofjudgmentorchoice.''Id (quoting Unitedstatesv.Gaubert,499

U.S.315,322 (1991)(internalquotationsomittedl).TsGovernmentconductdoesnotinvolve an
elementofjudgmentorchoice,andthusisnotdiscretionary,ifa federalstatute,regulation,or
policy specifically prescribesa course ofaction for an em ployee to follow ,because the em ployèe

hasnorightfuloptionbuttoadheretothedirective.''Id.(internalquotationsomitted).Stsecond,
iftheconductatissueinvolvestheexerciseofjudgment,gthçCoul'tjmustdeterminewhetherthat
judgmentisgroundedinconsiderationsofpublicpolicy.''Id (internalquotationsomitted).
The Courtcitesthatthe exception'spurpose isçcto preventjudicialsecond-guessing of
legislative and adm inistrativedecisionsgrounded in social,econom ic,and politicalpolicy through

the m edium ofan action in tort.''Gaubert,499 U .S.at323. The Courtdoesnotfocus on dGthe

subjectiveintentofthegovernmentemployeeorinquirewhethertheemployeeactuallyweighed
social,econom ic, and politicalpolicy considerations before acting.'' Cohen, 151 F.3d at 1341.
R ather,the focus is on the tdnature of the actions taken and on w hether they are susceptible to

policyanalysis.''1d.(quoting Gaubert,499U.S.at325).
lV .LezalA nalvsis

M s.A lvarez's Com plaintstatesa claim forreliefalleging negligence- thatthe D efendant
ow ed her a duty ofcare w hile incarcerated as an inm ate,thatD efendantbreached thatduty by not
taldng properprecautions,thatthebreach ofthatduty created the conditionsforhersexualassault,
and that she suffered dam ages. M ore specifically,M s.A lvarez alleges that the U nited States

breacheditsdutytoherby Gtnegligentlyrecnliting,hiring,trainingand supervising OffcerSeam an
despite knowledge ofhispastmisconduct,violating provisionsofPrison Rape Elimination Act

andtheProgram Rulesdesignedtokeep (Ms.Alvarezqfreefrom sexualabuse,andmaintaininga
culture of sexual abuse where prison official m isconduct is tolerated while com plaints are

silenced.''(D.E.11at4q.

Thecrux oftheUnited States'argum entisthateach ofM s.Alvarez'sclaim sofnegligence
isbarred by the discretionary function exception to the FederalTol4 Claim sA ctand otherw ise fails
to allege any (Gindependentnegligence''w ithin the scope ofthe FederalTortClaim s A ct's w aiver

ofsovereign imm unity. M s.Alvarez countersby leaning on a burden-shifling argum ent'
.thatthe
burden of providing the applicability of the discretionary function exem ption as an aftinnative
defense falls upon the D efendant. ln herview ,the C ourtshould follow the Sixth,Seventh,and

NinthCircuitsinrulingthatEcthe(governmentjbearstheburdenofprovingtheapplicabilityofone
oftheexceptionsto theFTCA'Sgeneralwaiverofimm unity.''Prescottv.Unitedstates,973 F.2d

696(9thCir.1992).
Becausetslvjil-tuallyeveryactofagovernmentemployee,eventhemostministerialaction

by thelowest-levelemployee,involvessomejudgmentorchoice,''itisimportantthattheCoul't
not interpret the discretionary function exception in a m anner that w ould Slim m unize every

governmentalact.''Sextonv.Unitedstates,132F.Supp.2d 967,972(M .D.Fla.2000)(emphasis
added).Thus,Ctthecotu'
tsmustexerciserestraintininsulati
qngthegovernmentfrom nearlya11tort

liability,becauseto do sowouldfrustrateCongress'purposein enactingtheFTCA.''1d (citing
Coulthurstv.United States,214 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.2000)). ThisCourtagreeswith the Second
Circuit's ahalysis thatthe am biguous textof the discretionary ftmction exception could lead to
Cçabsurd results''in favor ofthe governm ent,as exhibited by the follow ing exam ple. Coulthurst,
214 F.3d at 110.

For example,the driver ofa m ailtruck undoubtedly exercises discretion in the

mannerofdriving andmakesizmumerablejudgmentcallsinthecourseofmaldng
his orherdeliveries.In som em arm erofspealdng,therefore,one m ightcharacterize

itas an Esabuse of discretion''forthatdriverto failto step on the brake when a

pedestrian steps in frontofthe car,to failto signalbefore turning,orto drive 80

milesperhourljin a 35 mile perhourzone.Such a characterization,however,
w ould effectively shield alm ost a11 governm ent negligence from suit, because
alm ost every act involves som e m odicum of discretion regarding the m anner in
w hich one carries it out.Such a result is not required by the language of the

gdiscretionary functionexceptionjatldwouldundercutthepolicyaimsattheheart
ofthegFederalTol'
tClaimsAct).
Id
H ere,the D efendant contends that itis insulated from liability because em ploym ent and
term ination choicesarediscretionary.How ever,Congressestablished thePrison RapeElim ination
A ct of 2003 as a m echanism to Stdevelop and im plem ent national standards for the detection,
prevention,reduction,and punishm entofprison rape''and Stincrease the accountability ofprison

officialswho failto detect,prevent,reduce,and punish prijon rape.''117 U.S.C.j 972 (2003).
Cvailadm inistrators are notperm itted to Sbuzy theirheadsin the sand'and ignore ...obviousrisks

to the inm ate populations they have an affirm ative du'
ty to protect.''Rivera v.Bonner,952 F.3d

560,569(5th Cir.2017)(quoting Waltonv.Dawson,752F.3d 1109,1119 (8th Cir.2014:.This
Courtagreeswith theFifth CircuitthattjailofficialswhoprovideLnotraining'on sexualabuse
mld leave theirem ployees tvirtually unsupervised'are deliberately indifferentto the substantial

risk thatjailersmightabusedetainees.''1d.(quotingDrakev.City ofHaltom Cffy,106F.App'x
897,900(5th Cir.2004).
In this case,M s.Alvarez allegesthattheprison officerslacked propertraining and were
not properly supervised or disciplined. Further, she alleges that the officers were provided

unrestricted and tmsupervised accessto her- despiteprevious complaintsofsexualmisconduct.

9

The Defendantcannot avoid liability by azguing thatthe correctionaloftk ers'conducthad an

tielementofjudgmentor choice''so asto renderDefendantimmune. M s.Alvarez's factual
allegations about the U nited States' system atic and w illful ignorance of basic safety standards

dem onstratesthepossibility fordirectliability undertheFederalTortClaimsAct.
A dditionally, under the tw o-part test to determ ine w hether challenged conduct by a
governm ent em ployee falls w ithin the discretionary ftm ction exception,the relevant inquiry is
('w hetherthe controlling statute orregulation m andatesthata governm entagentperform hisorher

function in a specific mnnner.''Hughes v.United States,110 F.3d 765,768 (11th Cir.1997)
(internalquotationsomitted)(quotingPowersv.United States,996 F.2d 1121,1125(11th Cir.
1997)).Correctionalofficersareexpresslynotpermittedtoengageinsexualactivitywithinmates.
See18U.S.C.2243(19.CdW hoever...knowinglyengagesinasexualactwithanotherpersonwho

isinofficialdetentiong)andunderthecustodial,supervisory,ordisciplinaryauthorityoftheperson
soengaging;orattemptstodoso,shallbefinedunéerthistitle,imprisonednotmorethan 15years,
or both.''f#. ln other words, despite the Defendant's attempt to argue that the corrections
authoritiesm ay rely on theirdiscretionary powersto determ ine how to supervise theinmates of
the corrections facility,they are notauthorized to use discretion in perm itting sexualacts against

inmates.Hence,such conductdoesnotinvolveGjudgmentorchoice''underthemeaning ofthe
statute ûçbecause the em ployeehas no rightfuloption butto adhere to the directive''to notengage
in sexualactsw ith inm ates.Cohen,151 F.3d at1341.

Therefore, the Court rejects this broad interpretation of the discretionary ftmction
exception, as virtually a11 governm ent positions require som e sort of discretion in perform ing.
Thus,the discretionary function exception doesnotapply,and the M otion to D ism isson the basis

ofthe application ofthisexception isdenied.

10

TH E COU RT has oonsidered the m otion,the response in opposition,the reply,pertinent
poMions ofthe record,and being otherw ise fully advised in the prem ises,itis
A DJU D G ED thatthe m otion isD EN IED .Further,itis
A DJU D G ED thatan M sw eris required by Septem ber 30.2024.

DONE AND ORDERED in ChambersatM iami,Florida,this

FED
UN

Copiesfurnished to:
CounselofR ecord

U'f ofAugust2024.

A .M OREN O
D STA TES D ISTRICT JUD GE