## Facts

- Dorrell R. Coulthurst, a federal prisoner at FCI–Danbury, was injured while using a lateral pulldown machine in the prison exercise room.
- During exercise, the cable connecting the bar to the weights snapped, causing the bar to strike his shoulders and neck with substantial force.
- Coulthurst sustained a torn rotator cuff and injuries to his back and neck.
- He alleged Bureau of Prisons personnel negligently inspected and maintained the machine, including failing to inspect and replace the cable when needed.
- Bureau of Prisons review guidelines required officials to visit the wellness area to assess safety and proper use, but did not prescribe specific methods for inspecting weight equipment.

## Issues

1. Whether an FTCA negligence complaint alleging inadequate inspection and maintenance of prison exercise equipment necessarily falls within the discretionary function exception, requiring dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at the pleading stage.
2. Whether the complaint, fairly read, includes allegations of non-policy operational negligence (e.g., skipped or careless inspections) that would fall outside the discretionary function exception.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the complaint must be read to cover the full range of conduct it fairly alleges.
- The allegations could include ordinary negligence in carrying out routine inspections—such as failing to inspect, or performing inspections carelessly—rather than protected policy choices.
- Because such non-policy negligence, if proven, would fall outside the discretionary function exception, dismissal based solely on the pleadings was premature.

## Legal Principles

- The FTCA’s discretionary function exception bars claims based on discretionary acts grounded in social, economic, or political policy, even if discretion is abused.
- Discretionary function analysis asks (1) whether the conduct involved judgment or choice and (2) whether the judgment is the kind the exception protects (policy-based).
- Decisions about inspection frequency or methods may involve policy considerations (e.g., staffing and resource allocation) and can be protected.
- Negligent nonperformance or careless performance of routine operational tasks (such as skipped or cursory inspections due to inattention) is not a policy judgment and may fall outside the exception.
- When a complaint can fairly be read to allege both protected discretionary decisions and unprotected operational negligence, dismissal on discretionary function grounds should not occur without factual development.

## Conclusion

The court held that an FTCA complaint alleging negligent inspection and maintenance of prison exercise equipment should not be dismissed under the discretionary function exception at the pleading stage where the allegations can be read to charge ordinary operational negligence, such as missed or careless inspections unrelated to policy choices.


Coulthurst v. United States, 214 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2000)