Summary
finding that the decision of the Forest Service as to whether to close areas to target practice was discretionary as it "was for the Forest Supervisor to determine whether methods existed to mitigate safety hazards, protect resources and resolve or mitigate conflict with other Forest users" and that those types of decisions" were "grounded in social, economic, and political policy,' which are not amenable to judicial second-guessing under the Federal Tort Claims Act"
Summary of this case from Canody v. United StatesOpinion
Argued and Submitted June 5, 2001.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Target shooters brought action against United States under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The United States District Court for the Central District of California, William D. Keller, J., granted summary judgment for United States, and shooters appealed. The Court of Appeals held that "discretionary function exception" to FTCA applied to Forest Service's decision regarding whether closure of areas to target shooting was required.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, William D. Keller, District Judge, Presiding.
Before KOZINSKI, THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District Judge.
Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment based on the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). Although closure of areas to target shooting was required if certain conditions existed, the decision as to whether those conditions existed was a discretionary one. It was for the Forest Supervisor to determine whether methods existed to mitigate safety hazards, protect resources and resolve or mitigate conflict with other Forest users. This required the exercise of judgment by the Forest Supervisor; therefore, the Forest Service actions are protected by the discretionary function exception. Valdez v. United States, 56 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir.1995); Blackburn v. United States, 100 F.3d 1426, 1434 (9th Cir.1996). Moreover, decisions such as the mitigation of conflicts with other Forest users are the type of judgments "grounded in social, economic, and political policy," which are not amenable to judicial second-guessing under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988).
AFFIRMED.