The Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) is the statute that allows for the recovery of damages against the United States (Cann 487). This Act allows prisoners of the federal government and pretrial detainees in federal correction facilities to file lawsuits against the United States if a federal officer injures them.
The Federal Torts Claims Act enables a litigant to sue the federal government over torts committed by its employees (Cann 487). The United States has no qualified immunity under this Act. It is important to note that the Act does not limit a noncitizen from suing the federal government. Noncitizen detainees and citizen prisoners have an equal opportunity to sue the United States under this law.
All FTCA actions are not brought to state courts; they must be brought to the federal court (Sisk, Noone, Steadman, and Lester 121). However, the state tort law is used in these cases. This is due to the fact that different states have different torts laws. Such legal suits have a different approach from normal cases. All legal suits that involve suing the federal government are guided with certain limitations. One cannot sue a federal officer directly by naming them in a suit. Further, one cannot sue the federal agency directly. The only means through which the FTCA allows one to sue federal agencies or employees is by naming the United States as the defendant and discussing the actions of the particular federal agency or employee (Sisk, Noone, Steadman, and Lester 121).
Any injury caused by a federal officer in a state detention center or federal jails to detainee or prisoners can be an eligible ground for suing the federal government (Neubauer 12). This can be argued as a possible negligence of the federal government for not housing the detainee or prisoners in a safe nonfederal facility. It is especially used when the detainee or prisoner is held in a county, state or local jail. In Bolton V. United States, 2004 in the District of Florida, the court held that so long as the federal officer is acting under the color of federal law or in the scope of employment, he or she cannot be held liable.
There are several types of torts that one can use to base their case against the federal government. Some of them include intentional torts or negligence like false arrest, abuse of process, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. The only tort that one cannot use to sue the government is mishandling, detaining or losing your belongings. One can only file an administrative claim for loss or damage to personal property.
Under the FTCA, one can only sue for damages to be compensated for the injury caused. One cannot get punitive damages from the federal government. The amount of money claimed in the administrative claim guides the court and one cannot get more than specified in this claim. The only exemption to this rule is when the injuries have gotten worse since the time of filing the claim.
Under Florida State Law, the correctional officers in this case have a duty imposed on them to conduct themselves in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, all applicable laws, and the Florida Constitution. They may only act within the powers granted to them by the community. They should not knowingly exceed their power or authority while enforcing the law or applying regulations and rules to the inmates they supervise. Under the Florida State Law, correctional officers shall not disobey the criminal procedure in such as arrest, interrogation or detention.
The individual officers were liable for using excessive force while handling the inmate at the hospital. They grabbed and mishandled him. This led to further injuries to the inmate. In the Supreme Court case of Monroe V. Pape, the court held that an officer can be sued for excessive use of force when dealing with inmates (Ross and Voss 210). In Plumhoff V. Rickard, the Supreme Court held that the officers did not act unreasonably (Schwartz and Kirklin 595). Several court decisions hold that federal officers are supposed to use reasonable force while dealing with inmates or suspects. The reasonable test should be carried out to ensure that officers act within reason and their scope of work while dealing with inmates.
There are three statutes that control the kind of claims to be instituted against officers. These statutes are the statute governing the violation of civil rights due to excessive force, the statute governing federal civil claims and the statute creating federal jurisdiction over excessive force claims. These statutes also specify the courts that can hear excessive force cases.
When defending the officers in this case, I would argue that they are immune from legal suit. Under the Federal Torts Claims Act, one cannot sue the individual federal officer for an action done in his or her scope of employment. In the case of Bolton v. the United States, the court held that federal officers cannot be held liable for actions carried out in their scope of employment. The federal employees have the freedom to act on their own; they are assumed to have performed a discretionary duty or function of the government and cannot be sued for such actions. The FTCA guarantees such protection of the federal agents even when they abused their discretion. This decision was held in Berkovitz V. United States.
The plaintiff must show that the federal officers or agency acted in a manner that led to his infliction of harm, loss or damage. The plaintiff must prove that he suffered loss due to the actions of the federal government agents. In this case, the plaintiff has to prove to the court that the inmate could not have inflicted himself to pain by jumping off the hospital window if the officers were alert (Beermann 193). The plaintiff must argue that the two officers were liable for the prisoners' escape attempts. This is due to the fact that the officers did not thoroughly understand the prisoner’s physical and mental health.
The federal bureau of prisons was also liable for the unfortunate incident at the hospitals. The agency did not fully brief the two officers of the physical and mental health of the prisoner. The federal prisons did not take the necessary measures to ensure that the prisoner was held in a safe, federal facility rather than housing him in a nonfederal facility.
Further, the officers in this case used excessive force while they were trying to bring the inmate back from the window to the hospital room. This led to further injuries that could have caused the death of the prisoner. Both officers mishandled the inmate by grabbing the inmate’s ankle while some part of the body was touching the first floor of the hospital’s building. The injuries sustained by the inmate during this incident led to his death later that day. In that instance, the officers were clearly acting contrary to the law and their actions ought to be treated as such.
Works Cited
Beermann, Jack M. Administrative Law. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers, 2010. Print.
Cann, Steven J. Administrative Law. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2006. Print.
Neubauer, David W. Americas Courts and the Criminal Justice System + Careers in Criminal\ Justice. 1st ed. [Place of publication not identified]: Wadsworth, 2013. Print.
Ross, Mary M, and Edwin P. Voss. Sword and Shield: A Practical Approach to Section 1983
Litigation. Chicago, Ill: Section of State and Local Government Law, American Bar Association, 2006. Print.
Sisk, Gregory C, Michael F. Noone, John M. Steadman, and Urban A. Lester. Litigation with the
Federal Government. Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education, 2006. Print.
Schwartz, Martin A, and John E. Kirklin. Section 1983 Litigation: Claims and Defenses. New
York [etc.: J. Wiley & Sons [then] Aspen, 1997. Print.
