Denise Freeman v. US Marshal Service , 310 F. App'x 355 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEBRUARY 6, 2009
No. 08-11985
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 07-00665-CV-RDP
DENISE FREEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(February 6, 2009)
Before WILSON and COX, Circuit Judges, and ALBRITTON,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Denise Freeman appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the
U.S. Marshal Service. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
*
Honorable William H. Albritton, III, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Alabama, sitting by designation.
novo, applying the same legal standards that controlled the district court. Means v.
United States, 176 F.3d 1376, 1378 (11th Cir. 1999).
On April 12, 2007, Freeman brought suit against the U.S. Marshal Service (“the
Service”) pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346. Her
claims arise from the allegedly tortious conduct of a Court Security Officer (“CSO”)
at the Anniston, Alabama federal courthouse. Ninety days later, the Service moved
for dismissal as a matter of law, or in the alternative, summary judgment, relying on
the contract between the Service and AKAL Security, Inc. (“AKAL”), a private
security company for which all Anniston courthouse CSOs worked, to argue that the
CSO is an employee of the independent contractor only, not a federal employee for
purposes of the FTCA. The district court converted the motion to one for summary
judgment and ordered additional briefing. In her response to the Service’s motion for
summary judgment, Freeman requested denial of the motion on two grounds: (1) that,
under the contract, the Service reserved the right to directly control the day-to-day
operations of the CSOs; and (2) that discovery, which had not yet been taken in the
case, would aid Freeman in proving facts of day-to-day control. (R.1-16 at 12.)
The district court granted summary judgment for the Service. In its order
granting summary judgment, the court focused on the terms of the contract between
the Service and the security contractor and found that, under the terms of that
2
contract, the CSO is not under federal control. (R.1-18 at 14.) The district court also
found that there was no record evidence offered to contradict the terms of the
contract. (Id. at 15.) Therefore, the district court held that the CSO is not a federal
employee and the Service cannot be liable to Freeman pursuant to FTCA for acts of
the CSO. (Id. at 14, 15, 21.) The district court did not address Freeman’s request for
time to conduct discovery.
Freeman appeals, arguing that the CSO should be considered a federal
employee, rather than an independent contractor, for FTCA purposes. The Service
disagrees and defends the judgment.
We apply the established “control test” to determine whether an individual is
a government employee or an independent contractor for FTCA purposes. “[A]
person is an employee of the Government if the Government controls and supervises
the day-to-day activities of the alleged tortfeasor during the relevant time.” Patterson
& Wilder Constr. Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2000).
Applying this test, we consider the terms of the contract between the Service and
AKAL and any other record facts that might illuminate the extent of the Service’s
control over CSO day-to-day activities.
Under the contract between the Service and AKAL, a Deputy Marshal is
designated as the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (“COTR”). The
3
COTR is responsible for providing post orders and standard operating procedures for
each CSO post, assigning and scheduling patrol routes, authorizing CSO overtime,
and directing CSOs to perform other court security related duties. A Lead CSO
reports directly to the COTR, and each day the COTR “coordinates daily activities”
with the Lead CSO. Additionally, the Service retains the authority to “remove” any
CSO who fails to meet the Government’s standards. These contractual provisions
tend to support a finding that the Service controls and supervises the day-to-day
activities of the alleged tortfeasor.
On the other hand, the contract specifies that AKAL should provide a
supervisory structure for CSOs, including a Contract Manager, Site Supervisors, and
Lead CSOs. These contractor employees are required to perform supervisory duties
including “ensuring that all contractor employees adhere[] to the performance
standards”; “oversee[ing] and manag[ing] the day-to-day operations of the CSO
Program for their respective district”; “coordinat[ing] daily activities at his or her
appointed facility directly with the COTR”; and, providing “a direct degree of
supervision for the daily work of the CSOs.” These contractual provisions seem to
indicate that the contractor provides control and supervision over the day-to-day
activities of the CSO.
4
As the district court recognized, the record in this case contains very little
evidence other than the contract regarding the level of control exercised by the
Service over the day-to-day activities of the CSOs. (R.1-18 at 14.) Because
discovery had not yet begun at the time the motion for summary judgment was
granted, no evidentiary facts other than the contract terms were presented regarding
the daily interaction between the Service and CSOs at the Anniston courthouse. Nor
were any facts presented about the role the Service may have had in the specific
incidents at issue in the complaint.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Freeman, we find the terms
of the contract alone insufficient to answer the question of whether the Service
exercised control over the day-to-day activities of the CSO. We cannot say that no
genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the CSO is a federal employee for
FTCA purposes. And, we have recognized that, where, as here, the inquiry necessary
to resolve defendant’s motion will resolve both the question of subject matter
jurisdiction and a necessary element of the tort claim, discovery may be necessary
prior to resolution of that motion. See Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1530
(11th Cir. 1990); Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 414 (5th Cir. 1981).
5
We conclude that, while summary judgment may be appropriate in this case in
the future, it was prematurely granted. Therefore, we vacate the summary judgment
and remand to the district court for further proceedings, including discovery.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
6