Clardy v. Gangitano

“[D]iscretionary immunity attaches when ‘an immune policy choice expresses a completed thought that fully controls how the employees should apply the policy to a particular case’. Discretionary immunity does not attach, however, when an ‘employee applies an otherwise immune policy to inapplicable circumstances.’”

Plaintiff appeals the general judgment of dismissal entered in favor of defendants after denying Plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment and granting Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff asserts four assignments of error. Plaintiff was an Adult in Custody in ODOC care. Plaintiff was at OSP but transported to Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC) for resentencing. Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defendant, a Correctional Corporal in the OSP property room, requesting his personal property be held in the OSP property room pending his court proceedings in Multnomah. Defendant disposed of the property before Plaintiff returned to OSP. Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by misapplying a prison rule and erred in concluding discretionary immunity protects defendants. Plaintiff further argues that OAR 291-117-0120(6) applied instead. “[D]iscretionary immunity attaches when ‘an immune policy choice expresses a completed thought that fully controls how the employees should apply the policy to a particular case’. Discretionary immunity does not attach, however, when an ‘employee applies an otherwise immune policy to inapplicable circumstances.’” When analyzing whether discretionary immunity attaches, the courts weigh three factors. The Court reasoned that the defendant’s application of the administrative rule was inconsistent and that Defendant did not establish that their interpretation of the administrative rule was made by someone with interpretive authority. The Court determined that because the application of the rule was inconsistent, ODOC was not entitled to deference in its interpretation. The Court held that, absent deference, Defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the question of whether they applied the right rule to Plaintiff’s circumstances. Reversed and Remanded as to conversion and negligence claims, otherwise affirmed.