Hines

Hines v. United States

Good Law
81 F. App'x 201
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 14, 2003No. 02-56471; D.C. No. CV-98-07858-CASCalifornia357 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Frank O. Hogan (“Hogan”), an inmate at the U.S. Penitentiary-Atlanta, died from injuries that he sustained when he was kicked in the head by a fellow-inmate wearing steel-toed boots. Hogan’s wife (“Mrs. Hogan”) sued the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., claiming that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) was negligent in supplying steel-toed boots to Hogan’s assailant. The district court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the FTCA’s discretionary function exemption precluded government liability.

Reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment and application of the discretionary function exemption de novo, see United States v. City of Tacoma, 332 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2003), we find that the discretionary function exemption bars Mrs. Hogan’s claim. Steel-toed boots were not “contraband” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1791 (d)(1)(F). Moreover, by Executive Order, OSHA regulations require the BOP to provide protective footwear to inmates who work in particular areas of the prison to protect their feet from work-related injuries. Executive Or *202 der No. 12196 § 1-101 et seq., 45…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.