Millbrook v. United States
Holding
The law enforcement proviso to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies to all the activities of law enforcement officers within the scope of their employment, not just to their investigative or law enforcement activities.
Judgment
Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Clarence Thomas on Mar 27, 2013.
Holding: The law enforcement proviso to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies to all the activities of law enforcement officers within the scope of their employment, not just to their investigative or law enforcement activities.
Judgment:”Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on March 27, 2013.
May 10, 2012Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 18, 2012)
Jun 18, 2012Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 18, 2012.
Jul 11, 2012Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 17, 2012.
Aug 17, 2012Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.Aug 30, 2012DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Sep 25, 2012Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether 28 U.S.C. Sec.1346(b) and 2680(h) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for the intentional torts of prison guards when they are acting within the scope of their employment but are not exercising authority to "execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.
Oct 4, 2012Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Kim Millbrook. (Distributed)
Oct 9, 2012Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED and it is ordered that Christopher J. Paolella, Esquire, of New York, New York, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
Nov 6, 2012The time to file the joint appendix and and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 30, 2012.
Nov 9, 2012Letter of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
Nov 30, 2012Brief of respondent United States supporting reversal and remand filed.Nov 30, 2012Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Nov 30, 2012Brief of petitioner Kim Millbrook filed.Nov 30, 2012Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Dec 3, 2012Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Esquire, of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.
Dec 7, 2012The time to file the brief of Court-Appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including January 11, 2013.
Dec 7, 2012Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education, Inc., et al. filed.
Dec 7, 2012Brief amicus curiae of Lewisburg Prison Project filed.
Dec 7, 2012Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed.
Dec 18, 2012SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 19, 2013.
Jan 4, 2013CIRCULATED.
Jan 11, 2013Record from U.S.C.A. for Third Circuit and U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is electronic.
Jan 11, 2013Brief amicus curiae of Court-Appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed. (Distributed)Feb 11, 2013Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument out-of-time filed.
Feb 11, 2013Reply of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)Feb 11, 2013Reply of petitioner Kim Millbrook filed. (Distributed)Feb 15, 2013Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General out-of-time GRANTED.
Feb 19, 2013Argued. For petitioner: Christopher J. Paolella, New York, N. Y. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent in support of reversal and remand: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Washington, D. C.Mar 27, 2013Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Apr 29, 2013JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Apr 29, 2013JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Recommended Citation: Millbrook v. United States, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/millbrook-v-united-states/