Eddie Tyrone Cranford v. United States , 466 F.3d 955 ( 2006 )

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10685 OCTOBER 5, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00561-CV-CB-M
EDDIE TYRONE CRANFORD,
Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Counter-
Claimant-Third-Party-
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HOWARD MELECH,
DIANE G. MELECH,
as Personal Representative and
Administratrix of the Estate of
Ronald C. Melech, deceased,
Third-Party-Defendants-
Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(October 5, 2006)
Before BIRCH, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PRYOR, Circuit Judge:
The issue in this appeal is whether the “discretionary function exception” to
the waivers of sovereign immunity in the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Public
Vessels Act applies to decisions of federal officials in marking and choosing not to
remove a submerged wreck. Eddie Tyrone Cranford, Howard Melech, and Diane
Melech filed complaints against the United States regarding personal injuries and
death suffered in an allision of a pleasure boat and a submerged wreck. Their
complaints alleged negligence by the government, and the district court dismissed
the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because we conclude the
marking of a submerged wreck and the refusal to remove it are discretionary
decisions grounded in social, political, and economic policy, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 9, 2003, a seventeen-foot motor boat operated by Ronald Melech
and carrying Howard Melech and Eddie Cranford struck a submerged object in
2
Mobile Bay, approximately 100 yards north of Fort Morgan beach. At the time of
the allision, the boat was traveling eastward parallel to the shore at approximately
30 miles an hour. Upon impact, Cranford and Ronald Melech were thrown from
the boat and injured. Cranford was injured, and Ronald Melech died. Howard
Melech, who was also injured, helped Cranford back into the boat, but Ronald
Melech’s body was not found until the next day.
The motor boat struck a submerged vessel, known as the Fort Morgan
Wreck. Where closest to the surface of the water, the wreck is between 6 and 18
inches below the surface. The Melechs and Cranford presented evidence, which
the district court concluded is likely to be admissible, that the submerged wreck is
a former United States Army Mine Planter deliberately sunk in the 1930s by the
federal Works Progress Administration to serve as a breakwater. The government
asserts that it does not know if these facts are accurate.
The Coast Guard initially charted and marked the wreck in 1992 with a
temporary lighted buoy. In 1996, the Coast Guard replaced the temporary buoy
with a telephone-pole-type piling, driven into the bed of Mobile Bay
approximately 164 feet north-northwest of the part of the wreck closest to the
surface. The piling bore two orange and white signs with the words “Danger
Wreck.” Over the years, the Coast Guard received reports of vessels striking the
3
wreck despite the marking. After a request from the Alabama Department of
Conservation, the Coast Guard again modified the marker on August 5, 2003, and
replaced the signs with a flashing light and a six-foot-wide red triangle with the
letters “WR2.” At the time of the allision, the marker consisted of the piling, the
flashing light, and the red triangle.
Cranford, Howard Melech, and Diane Melech, the wife of the deceased
Ronald Melech, filed separate complaints against the government in federal court,
which were consolidated for purposes of discovery. They alleged that negligence
of the government in marking the Fort Morgan Wreck and in refusing to remove it
caused the death of Ronald Melech and personal injuries to Cranford and Howard
Melech. They alleged that the district court had jurisdiction over their claims
under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, the Suits in
Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 741-52, the Public Vessels Act, 46 U.S.C. §§
781-90, and the Wreck Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 409, 411, 412, 414 and 415.
The government moved to dismiss the complaints for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on the ground that the United States had not waived its sovereign
immunity. The district court granted the motions. The district court relied on
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 111 S. Ct. 1267 (1991), and concluded that
the marking of the Fort Morgan Wreck and refusal to remove it fell within the
4
“discretionary function exception” of the Federal Tort Claims Act, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2680(a), and that the waivers of sovereign immunity in the Suits in Admiralty
Act and the Public Vessels Act did not apply.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.” Ochran v. United States, 117 F.3d 495, 499 (11th Cir.
1997). “[W]e view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Parise v.
Delta Airlines, Inc., 141 F.3d 1463, 1465 (11th Cir. 1998).
III. DISCUSSION
To resolve this appeal, we must address three matters: (1) the legal standard
for the discretionary function exception; (2) whether the marking of the Fort
Morgan Wreck falls within the exception; and (3) whether the refusal to remove
the wreck falls within the exception. Although the parties are in sharp conflict on
every issue, we agree with the arguments of the government and the decision of the
district court.
A. The Discretionary Function Exception Is Governed
by Gaubert, Not Drake Towing.
The United States is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. United
States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586, 61 S. Ct. 767, 769 (1941). The Suits in
Admiralty Act (SAA), 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 741-52, provides a waiver of sovereign
5
immunity and the “sole jurisdictional basis for admiralty claims against the United
States,” Mid-South Holding Co., Inc. v. United States, 225 F.3d 1201, 1203 (11th
Cir. 2000), that do not involve public vessels, see Marine Coatings of Ala., Inc. v.
United States, 71 F.3d 1558, 1560-61 & n.3 (11th Cir. 1996). The Public Vessels
Act (PVA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 781-90, provides a waiver of sovereign immunity for
admiralty claims involving public vessels. Both waivers are subject to the
discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). See Mid-
South Holding, 225 F.3d at 1203-04 (applying exception to waiver in SAA); U.S.
Fire Ins. Co. v. United States, 806 F.2d 1529, 1535 (11th Cir. 1986) (applying
exception to waiver in PVA).
Because the government has raised a factual challenge to subject matter
jurisdiction, the Melechs and Cranford must establish that the discretionary
function exception does not apply. See OSI, Inc. v. United States, 285 F.3d 947,
951 (11th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court in Gaubert “developed a two-step test to
determine whether the government’s conduct meets the discretionary function
exception.” Miles v. Naval Aviation Museum Found., Inc., 289 F.3d 715, 720
(11th Cir. 2002) (citing Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23, 111 S. Ct. at 1273-74). We
consider first whether the conduct involves “‘an element of judgment or choice,’”
OSI, Inc., 285 F.3d at 950 (quoting Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322, 111 S. Ct. at 1273),
6
which will be the case unless “‘a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically
prescribes a course of action embodying a fixed or readily ascertainable standard.’”
Hughes v. United States, 110 F.3d 765, 768 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Autery v.
United States, 992 F.2d 1523, 1529 (11th Cir. 1993)). The conduct need not be
“confined to the policy or planning level.” Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, 111 S. Ct. at
1275.
We then ask whether the judgment or choice is grounded in considerations
of public policy, because the “purpose of the [discretionary function] exception is
to ‘prevent judicial “second-guessing” of legislative and administrative decisions
grounded in social, economic, and political policy through the medium of an action
in tort.’” Id. at 322-23, 111 S. Ct. at 1273-74 (quoting United States v. S.A.
Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 814, 104
S. Ct. 2755, 2765 (1984)). “When established governmental policy, as expressed
or implied by statute, regulation, or agency guidelines, allows a [g]overnment
agent to exercise discretion, it must be presumed that the agent’s acts are grounded
in policy when exercising that discretion.” Id. at 324, 111 S. Ct. at 1274. Our
inquiry does not focus either on the subjective intent of the government agent, id.
at 325, 111 S. Ct. at 1275, or on whether the agent actually weighed policy
considerations, OSI, Inc., 285 F.3d at 950-51, but “on the nature of the actions
7
taken and on whether they are susceptible to policy analysis,” Gaubert, 499 U.S. at
325, 111 S. Ct. at 1275. To succeed, the Melechs and Cranford must establish
“that the challenged actions are not the kind of [discretionary] conduct that can be
said to be grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime.” Id. Such conduct
includes, for example, “dr[iving] an automobile on a mission connected with . . .
official duties.” Id. at 325 n.7, 111 S. Ct. at 1275 n.7.
The Melechs and Cranford contend that we should be guided by two of our
earlier decisions: Drake Towing Co., Inc. v. Meisner Marine Construction Co., 765
F.2d 1060 (11th Cir. 1985), and U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. United States, 806 F.2d
1529. We disagree. Our holdings in Drake Towing and U.S. Fire Insurance both
turned expressly on the principle that “operational” conduct falls outside the
discretionary function exception, see Drake Towing, 765 F.2d at 1064; U.S. Fire
Insurance, 806 F.2d at 1535-37, and the Supreme Court rejected that principle in
Gaubert. See 499 U.S. at 326, 111 S. Ct. at 1275; see also Autery, 992 F.2d at
1527. We do not follow precedents that are “clearly inconsistent” with an
intervening decision of the Supreme Court. See Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at
Birmingham Bd. of Trs., 344 F.3d 1288, 1292 (11th Cir. 2003).
The Melechs and Cranford would have us rule that the discretionary function
exception does not apply to the execution of a governmental decision, but this
8
argument merely restates the operational conduct distinction rejected in Gaubert.
The Melechs and Cranford rely on Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S.
61, 76 S. Ct. 122 (1955), and contend that the discretionary function exception
does not apply “once the [g]overnment exercise[s] its discretion to warn the public
of a danger, [because] it ha[s] a mandatory ‘hornbook tort law’ obligation to
perform its task ‘in a careful manner.’” This argument fails. We have previously
explained that “[t]his interpretation of Indian Towing . . . has been severely
undercut, if not altogether disavowed, by the Supreme Court in Gaubert,” Ochran,
117 F.3d at 505, and in any event, the government did not invoke the discretionary
function exception in Indian Towing, see Monzon v. United States, 253 F.3d 567,
572 (11th Cir. 2001).
B. The Marking of the Fort Morgan Wreck Falls Within
the Discretionary Function Exception.
The Melechs and Cranford challenge several decisions of the Coast Guard in
marking the Fort Morgan Wreck, such as placing the marker 164 feet away from
the wreck and using only one marker, but all of these decisions involved elements
of judgment or choice. The pertinent statute, regulations, and internal policy allow
the Coast Guard broad discretion in deciding how to mark a wreck. The statute
that grants the Coast Guard authority to mark wrecks provides, “The Secretary may
mark . . . any sunken vessel or other obstruction existing on the navigable
9
waters . . . of the United States in such manner and for so long as, in his judgment,
the needs of maritime navigation require.” 14 U.S.C. § 86 (emphasis added). The
relevant regulations provide that the Coast Guard “may mark for the protection of
maritime navigation any structure, sunken vessel or other obstruction that is not
suitably marked by the owner.” 33 C.F.R. § 64.33(a) (emphasis added). The Aids
to Navigation Administration Manual (“ATON Manual”), which contains internal
guidelines of the Coast Guard regarding the marking of wrecks, states that “the
Coast Guard retains the discretion to deviate or authorize deviation from” its
“requirements.” The ATON Manual creates “no duties or obligations to the public
to comply with the procedures” described in it, and the ATON Manual states that
“no member of the public should rely upon the[] procedures as a representation by
the Coast Guard as to the manner of performance of [the] aids to navigation
mission.” The Melechs and Cranford fail to identify “‘a federal statute, regulation,
or policy [that] specifically prescribes a course of action embodying a fixed or
readily ascertainable standard.’” Hughes, 110 F.3d at 768 (quoting Autery, 992
F.2d at 1529).
The closer question is whether the decisions of the Coast Guard in marking
the Fort Morgan Wreck were “susceptible to policy analysis” and “the kind of
conduct that can be said to be grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime.”
10
Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, 111 S. Ct. at 1275. The government persuasively
explains that decisions in marking a wreck involve social, political, and economic
policy considerations, such as taking into account the knowledge and customs of
international mariners, balancing the needs of pleasure and commercial watercraft,
and evaluating agency resource constraints, which include but are not limited to
financial concerns. The Melechs and Cranford respond that these considerations
are not “true policy judgments.” They assert that these considerations are merely
the application of professional standards, not policy decisions; all discretionary
conduct by the government involves budgetary considerations; and none of the
asserted considerations implicate “national policy.”
We agree with the government for three reasons. First, the contention that
the Coast Guard applied professional standards “is just another way of saying that
the considerations . . . are so precisely formulated that decisions at the operational
level never involve the exercise of discretion within the meaning of [the
discretionary function exception], a notion that [the Supreme Court] ha[s] . . .
rejected.” Id. at 331, 111 S. Ct. at 1278. It “may be that certain decisions resting
on mathematical calculations, for example, involve no choice or judgment in
carrying out the calculations,” but the decisions of the Coast Guard in marking a
wreck “are not of that genre.” Id. Second, although “[w]e recognize that . . .
11
budgetary constraints are almost always important to government decisions,”
Ochran, 117 F.3d at 502, and “[f]inancial considerations alone may not make a
decision one involving policy,” Hughes, 110 F.3d at 769, the decisions of the coast
guard involved more than financial considerations. Third, nothing in our case law
supports the Melechs’ and Cranford’s assertion that policy considerations must
implicate “national” policy. The Melechs and Cranford ask us to review evidence
regarding the actual considerations of the decisionmakers for the Coast Guard, but
we do not focus either on the subjective intent of the government agents, Gaubert,
499 U.S. at 325, 111 S. Ct. at 1275, or on whether the agents actually weighed
policy considerations, OSI, Inc., 285 F.3d at 950-51.
C. The Decision Not To Remove the Fort Morgan Wreck Falls
Within the Discretionary Function Exception.
The Melechs and Cranford also challenge the refusal of the government to
remove the Fort Morgan Wreck. They contend that this decision fails the first step
of the Gaubert test because a section of the Wreck Act, 33 U.S.C. § 409, allegedly
imposes a nondiscretionary duty on the government to remove the Fort Morgan
Wreck. The Melechs and Cranford assert that the government, as the alleged
owner of the sunken vessel, must “commence the immediate removal of [the
vessel] and prosecute such removal diligently.” 33 U.S.C. § 409. We disagree.
Although we view in the light most favorable to the Melechs and Cranford
12
the evidence that the government deliberately sank the vessel for a legitimate
public purpose, the removal requirement in the Wreck Act does not apply to the
government in this circumstance. Cf. Chute v. United States, 610 F.2d 7, 11 (1st
Cir. 1979) (concluding that deliberate creation of a wreck by government for Navy
target practice not subject to Wreck Act). The Wreck Act became law as part of
the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, and it must be read together
with the other sections of that statute. See Swain v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 543, 546
(11th Cir. 1982) (“[S]tatute must be considered as a whole . . . .”). Section 409
specifically prohibits the obstruction of navigable waters by vessels and requires
owners promptly to remove sunken vessels, but an earlier section of the statute,
section 403, speaks to “[o]bstruction of navigable waters generally” and provides
that the government may authorize the creation of obstructions, including
breakwaters. 33 U.S.C. § 403 (emphasis added). Were section 403 not to exist, it
would be absurd to read section 409 to require the government immediately to
remove a vessel that it deliberately sank for a public purpose. See Regions Bank v.
Provident Bank, Inc., 345 F.3d 1267, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he Supreme Court
has repeatedly held that ‘[i]f possible, [a court] should avoid construing [a] statute
in a way that produces [ ] absurd results.’” (quoting Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S.
410, 427, 112 S. Ct. 773, 783 (1992))); see also Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co.,
13
490 U.S. 504, 527, 109 S. Ct. 1981, 1994 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring) (noting
that a statute must be construed to avoid “unthinkable” and “bizarre” results). In
addition, the last clause of section 409 evidences that the removal requirement does
not apply to the government in any circumstance, because failure to comply with
that requirement subjects a sunken vessel to discretionary removal by the
government. 33 U.S.C. § 409 (stating that failure to remove a sunken vessel “shall
be considered as an abandonment” of the vessel and “subject the [vessel] to
removal by the United States”); see also Buffalo Bayou Transp. Co. v. United
States, 375 F.2d 675, 677 (5th Cir. 1967) (holding that section 409 does not require
the United States to remove “each sunken vessel in navigable waters”).
The remaining issue involves whether the refusal of the government to
remove a wreck that it intentionally sank for a public purpose necessarily
implicates public policy. The Melechs and Cranford understandably offer no
argument that this decision was not “susceptible to policy analysis.” Gaubert, 499
U.S. at 325, 111 S. Ct. at 1275. We conclude that the decision not to remove the
wreck is shielded from judicial second-guessing by the discretionary function
exception.
14
IV. CONCLUSION
The dismissal of the complaints of the Melechs and Cranford is
AFFIRMED.
15