## Facts

- William Cohen, a federal inmate serving an 18-month sentence for copyright violations, was housed in a minimum-security community corrections center at FCI Jesup, Georgia.
- On February 8, 1992, after a dispute over a television channel, inmate Humberto Garcia repeatedly struck Cohen in the head with a metal chair when others had left the room.
- Cohen suffered severe injuries requiring neurological surgery and hospitalization, with lasting impairments (gait problems, headaches, memory deficits, and loss of taste and smell).
- Cohen sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) negligently misclassified and placed Garcia in a minimum-security facility.
- Cohen contended a BOP employee failed to follow internal classification procedures when completing Garcia’s security-designation paperwork, leading to improper placement and the assault.

## Issues

1. Whether the FTCA discretionary function exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), bars claims challenging BOP inmate classification and facility-placement decisions, depriving the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. If jurisdiction exists, whether the alleged failure to follow internal classification guidance constituted actionable negligence causing Cohen’s injuries.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment for Cohen and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that BOP inmate classification and placement decisions fall within the FTCA discretionary function exception.
- Because the exception applied, the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to Cohen’s claim, and the merits of negligence need not be addressed.

## Legal Principles

- The FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for claims based on discretionary functions or duties, even if discretion is abused. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).
- Under the Berkovitz/Gaubert framework, the discretionary function exception applies when (1) the conduct involves judgment or choice because no specific mandatory directive controls, and (2) the judgment is the type susceptible to policy considerations.
- The BOP’s general statutory duties to safeguard and protect inmates under 18 U.S.C. § 4042 are framed broadly and do not mandate specific protective measures or placement outcomes, leaving implementation to official judgment.
- Internal agency guidance that channels decision-making without prescribing a single required outcome typically does not remove discretion for purposes of § 2680(a).
- Recasting the challenged conduct as an operational paperwork error does not avoid the exception when the alleged negligence is tied to discretionary, policy-laden classification and placement determinations.

## Conclusion

The court held that claims alleging negligent inmate classification and placement are barred by the FTCA discretionary function exception where no specific mandatory directive removes BOP discretion; accordingly, sovereign immunity remained intact and the action had to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


Cohen v. United States, 151 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1998)