decision by parole board to grant or deny parole is discretionary function immune under federal tort claims act
How later courts described this case
- decision by parole board to grant or deny parole is discretionary function immune under federal tort claims act
- “The plaintiff must therefore allege that the Board breached a duty sufficiently separable from the decision-making function to be nondiscretionary and outside of the exception.”
- "It is established in the Fifth Circuit that when the government undertakes to perform services which would not be required in the absence of specific legislation, it will be liable if these activities are performed negligently.”
- distinguishing under discretionary function immunity a negligent decision to release from negligent medical treatment
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Clarke v. United States, 107 F. Supp. 3d 238 (2015)
Because Defendant did not undertake to perform any medical services which would not be required in the absence of specific legislation, the analysis in Payton is inapplicable here.
The opinion
RONEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I fully concur in Judge Tjoflat’s dissent except to the extent that it makes a value judgment as to whether Congress should or should not provide a cause of action under the circumstances of this case. I am convinced that Congress did not intend to create such a cause of action, for the reasons stated by Judge Tjoflat. Whether it should or should not is up to Congress.