William Mendenhall v. United States ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM H. MENDENHALL, No. 21-35464
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00312-SLG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 8, 2022
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
William H. Mendenhall appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit
under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging negligence and civil rights
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The parties are familiar
with the facts, so we do not recount them here.
The district court properly dismissed Mendenhall’s negligent handling claim
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
as a “claim arising out of assault, battery, [or] false imprisonment,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2680(h), even though the complaint only pleaded negligence. See Snow-Erlin v.
United States, 470 F.3d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts must “look beyond the
party’s characterization to the conduct on which the claim is based” and to the
“gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint” to determine whether the claim is barred under
§ 2680(h)) (citations and alterations omitted).
The district court properly dismissed Mendenhall’s negligent training and
supervision claim as barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA’s
waiver of sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Mendenhall does not
specify which policy or procedure he believes the defendants violated, and he only
cites general policies that leave room for discretion. See Kelly v. United States, 241
F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] general regulation or policy . . . does not remove
discretion unless it specifically prescribes a course of conduct.”). Employee training
and supervision decisions are generally the type of discretionary judgments that the
discretionary function exception was designed to protect. See Miller v. United
States, 992 F.3d 878, 888 (9th Cir. 2021).
Mendenhall also failed to state a claim for a violation of his civil or
constitutional rights. See Morse v. N. Coast Opportunities, Inc., 118 F.3d 1338,
1343 (9th Cir. 1997) (“§ 1983 precludes liability in federal government actors”);
F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 478 (1994) (“[T]he United States simply has not
2
rendered itself liable under [the FTCA] for constitutional tort claims.”).
The motion for oral argument, Dkt. 10, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3