Curtrina Martin, et al v. USA, et al
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Reversed in Part
Victims of a wrong-house FBI raid sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and sued the lead agent for a Fourth-Amendment violation. The Eleventh Circuit held that all FTCA claims are barred by the discretionary-function exception but reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the agent, allowing the Bivens claim to proceed and remanded for further proceedings.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary-function exception shields the United States from liability when the challenged conduct is merely careless/negligent rather than a conscious policy judgment.
Circuit Positions
Careless or negligent conduct is still protected by the discretionary-function exception; no liability absent a mandatory directive.
Pure carelessness is outside the discretionary-function exception; the United States may be sued when the challenged act was merely negligent and not grounded in policy judgment.
Conflict Summary
The Second, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits hold that purely careless or ministerial negligence by federal employees falls outside the discretionary-function exception, allowing FTCA claims to proceed. In contrast, the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits treat carelessness the same as any other exercise of discretion, concluding that even negligent or reckless acts remain immune so long as no specific statute or regulation directed the employee’s conduct.