Hamilton v. United States

DEANDRE LAMONT HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-1105 (RDM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

July 6, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On May 19, 2016, Wayne Wright, a criminal defendant out on pretrial release, murdered Dana Hamilton. Although Wright was prosecuted for the crime, Plaintiff DeAndre Hamilton, as the personal representative of Dana Hamilton's estate, alleges in this case that the United States government bears some responsibility for not preventing the killing. At the time Wright shot Dana Hamilton, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency ("CSOSA") was supposed to be tracking Wright's whereabouts using a GPS monitor. But the government contractor responsible for attaching the tracking device to Wright's body, Sentinel Offender Services, LLC ("Sentinel"), mistakenly fastened it to Wright's prosthetic leg. Leaving the tracked prosthesis at home, Wright traveled undetected to an area he was under a court order to avoid and, there, murdered Dana Hamilton.

In his original complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims against the United States, CSOSA, Sentinel, and John Does 1-5 for negligently installing the tracking device and thereby causing Dana Hamilton's death. Dkt. 1. The United States and CSOSA moved to dismiss on several grounds. Dkt. 11. In an earlier opinion, the Court granted the federal Defendants' motion to dismiss because sovereign immunity barred suit against those Defendants. Hamilton v. United States, 502 F. Supp. 3d 266 (D.D.C. 2020) ("Hamilton I"). The Court held, in particular, that the limited waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") did not permit Plaintiff's claims against CSOSA because the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for suits against federal agencies. Likewise, the FTCA did not permit Plaintiff's claims against the United States because, although the FTCA allows certain claims against the United States, it does not waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on the negligence of independent contractors.

Following the Court's decision, Plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to allege that the United States was directly negligent in its decisions to hire and retain Sentinel.¹ Dkt. 27. With the parties' consent, the Court granted the motion to amend and construed the government's opposition to that motion, Dkt. 30, as a renewed motion to dismiss. Because Plaintiff's new claim again falls within an exception to the FTCA—this time, the discretionary-function exception—the Court will GRANT the government's motion and will DISMISS Plaintiff's claims against the United States.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual and Procedural Background

The Court detailed the tragic series of events that led to this lawsuit in its prior opinion. See Hamilton I, 502 F. Supp. 3d at 270-71. In short, on April 30, 2016, Wright, also known as Quincy Green, was charged in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia with unlawful possession of a firearm. Dkt. 33 at 6 (Am. Compl. ¶ 25). A few days later, the Superior Court released Wright pending trial while imposing certain conditions. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 26). As relevant here, the court ordered a component of CSOSA, known as the Pretrial Services Agency("PSA"), to attach a GPS monitoring device to Wright so that PSA could track his location. Id. And the court prohibited Wright from visiting the 800 block of Chesapeake Street S.E. in the District of Columbia. Id. Under a contract between PSA and Sentinel, it was Sentinel's job to secure the GPS device to Wright's leg. Id. at 6-7 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27-28). Wright has one natural leg and one detachable prosthetic leg. Id. at 7 (Am. Compl. ¶ 29). Sentinel's agents (named in the amended complaint as John Does 1-5) attached the GPS to Wright's prosthetic leg. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 30). Wright then circumvented the tracking device by replacing the tracked prosthesis with a spare one, traveled in violation of the stay-away order to the 800 block of Chesapeake Street S.E., and shot and killed Dana Hamilton. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 31-32). Within a week, Wright was charged with second-degree murder. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 32).

Plaintiff originally filed this lawsuit on April 18, 2019, against the United States, CSOSA, Sentinel, and John Does 1-5. Dkt. 1. The federal Defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds. Dkt. 11; Dkt. 13. On November 16, 2020, the Court granted the federal Defendants' motion. Hamilton I, 502 F. Supp. 3d at 278. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against CSOSA because federal agencies, unlike the United States itself, are not subject to suit under the FTCA—and CSOSA "is an independent executive branch agency." Id. at 273-74; see also D.C. Code § 24-133(a) (establishing CSOSA "within the executive branch of the Federal Government"); Dkt. 1 at 3 (Compl. ¶ 6) (referring to CSOSA as "a government agency operating under the laws of the United States"). The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the United States, in turn, pursuant to the independent-contractor exception to the FTCA. Hamilton I, 502 F. Supp. 3d at 274-77. Based on an analysis of the contract between PSA and Sentinel, the Court concluded that the government did not exert control over Sentinel with respect to the installation of GPS tracking devices. Id. Accordingly, the United States could not be held liablefor Sentinel's alleged negligence. Id. at 277. The Court also noted that, in opposing the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff had asserted that "the United States was negligent for hiring Sentinel in the first place, a claim that would not be subject to the FTCA's independent contractor exception." Id. But Plaintiff's argument suffered from a glaring problem—"the complaint ma[de] no mention of this separate cause of action and d[id] not allege any facts to support it." Id. at 278. That argument thus could not save the original complaint from dismissal. Id. But the Court permitted Plaintiff to "file a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint within twenty-one days" of its decision, to the extent "Plaintiff ha[d] a good-faith basis . . . to allege that the United States was negligent for hiring Sentinel given known concerns about the company's competence." Id.

On December 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend, dropping his claims against CSOSA while seeking to add a new claim alleging that the United States was negligent in its decisions to retain Sentinel.² Dkt. 27. The United States opposed the motion to amend on the ground that the new claim would be barred by additional exceptions to the FTCA and that, in any event, the new claim failed on the merits. Dkt. 30. At a hearing on that motion, the Court (with the parties' consent) granted the motion to amend but construed the government's opposition as a motion to dismiss. Minute Entry (Feb. 5, 2021). In a new Count IV, the amended complaint asserts that the United States "had or should have had knowledge of Defendant Sentinel's unfitness to perform its contractually obligated duties," in light of the company's "history ofnegligence and of being sued for alleged impropriety, including not properly monitoring offenders and providing faulty monitoring equipment." Dkt. 33 at 13 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 61-62).

The amended complaint details several past accusations of wrongdoing and incompetence against Sentinel and alleges that, despite the controversy surrounding the company, PSA awarded Sentinel a contract to provide electronic monitoring services and equipment for pretrial and probationary defendants and then renewed that contract year after year. Id. at 4-5 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15-20). For example, in 2012, after years of litigation, a woman in Georgia allegedly received $175,000 because Sentinel had negligently issued a request for her arrest long after she had already completed her probation. Id. at 4 (Am. Compl. ¶ 16). In March 2013, a Florida man sued Sentinel for using allegedly faulty monitoring equipment that caused his false arrest and imprisonment; Sentinel allegedly settled the suit in 2016 for an undisclosed amount. Id. at 5 (Am. Compl. ¶ 17). Also in 2013, an audit in Orange County, California, allegedly found that more than a dozen out of 143 offenders had faulty monitoring bracelets, at least five of which had gone completely offline for twenty days. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 18). As a result, according to the amended complaint, Sentinel failed to report probation violations that the defective devices should have detected. Id. A subsequent audit in Los Angeles County, California, allegedly told a similar story. Id. It found that, during a two-month period, fifty-one of 196 defendants had to exchange their GPS trackers because of malfunctions. Id. Violent offenders allegedly went unmonitored for more than five days at a time. Id.

As the Court explained in Hamilton I, PSA first contracted with Sentinel to provide electronic monitoring of defendants on September 26, 2013. Hamilton I, 502 F. Supp. 3d at 275. According to Plaintiff, as part of obtaining the contract, "Sentinel completed a Past and Present Performance Questionnaire and was required to provide details regarding their performance ofpreviously awarded contracts." Dkt. 33 at 6 (Am. Compl. ¶ 22). PSA extended the contract annually through September 25, 2018, moreover, despite further legal trouble for Sentinel. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 24). For instance, in 2015, another Georgia woman was allegedly awarded $200,000 because Sentinel had failed to withdraw a warrant request after she had paid all outstanding fees. Id. at 5 (Am. Compl. ¶ 19). And in 2016, an Illinois woman sued Sentinel for allegedly failing to monitor two juveniles who attacked the plaintiff while purportedly under the company's electronic supervision. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 20). Finally, the amended complaint avers that approximately 2,800 plaintiffs have filed a class-action suit against Sentinel in Georgia for allegedly using coercive tactics, such as...