Iverson v. United States of America

Background

Brian Iverson alleged that Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents injured him during security screening at Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport in September 2011. He was using crutches because of an unrelated incident. According to the complaint, a TSA agent made him stand without the crutches and pulled him forward, causing him to lose his balance and fall. Iverson alleged a separated shoulder and a bruised nerve, and said the fall worsened preexisting injuries.

Iverson filed an administrative claim with the TSA in 2013. After that claim was denied in early 2018, he sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). He alleged that the agents committed battery under Minnesota law and, alternatively, were negligent. The United States and the TSA moved to dismiss. Iverson agreed that the TSA was not a proper defendant and did not oppose dismissing the TSA from the case.

Battery claim and law-enforcement exception

The FTCA waives the United States’ immunity from some negligence lawsuits but generally excludes claims arising from intentional torts, including battery. An exception applies to certain intentional torts committed by federal “investigative or law enforcement officers”—officers empowered to conduct searches, seize evidence, or make arrests for violations of federal law.

The court held that whether TSA agents qualify under this exception is a legal question. It relied on the reasoning of the Third Circuit’s decision in a prior related proceeding, which distinguished TSA screening agents from TSA law-enforcement officers. The court explained that screeners conduct administrative searches for items prohibited on aircraft, while TSA law-enforcement officers have different powers, including searching for criminal contraband, making arrests, and carrying firearms.

The complaint described an injury during Iverson’s initial screening and did not allege that TSA law-enforcement officers were involved. The court therefore concluded that the agents involved were TSA screeners who did not fall within the FTCA’s law-enforcement exception. Because the intentional-tort exclusion applied, the court ruled that the United States’ immunity required dismissal of the battery claim.

Negligence claim

Iverson argued that Minnesota law allowed him to plead negligence in the alternative. The court rejected that argument because whether the FTCA waives immunity is governed by federal law. It looked to the substance of the claim rather than only the label Iverson used.

The court stated that a negligence claim connected to an assault or battery remains barred when the alleged negligence does not arise from an independent duty unrelated to the employee’s relationship with the United States. Iverson’s negligence claim relied on the same events as his battery claim: that the TSA agents conducted the search negligently and caused him to fall. Because he did not identify an independent duty, the court held that the negligence claim was also barred.

Disposition

The court ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED and that the matter was DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.