On January 23, 2025, Jaehyun Oh, obtained a momentous decision from the Northern District of Florida in a case involving an incarcerated woman who was repeatedly raped by correctional Officer Lenton Jerome Hatten from 2019 to 2022 while she was incarcerated at FCI Tallahassee. On behalf of our client, Jaehyun Oh filed a lawsuit against the United States Federal Government for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual battery, and sexual assault.

The United States Federal Government moved to dismiss the entirety of the case; however, the Court did not grant the Defendants’ motion in its entirety, holding that the claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress could move forward under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

The case overcame the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, which is often invoked to prohibit tort claims against the Federal Government from proceeding. This decision sets important precedent for FTCA claims brought forward against the Federal Government, especially for similarly situated incarcerated victims of correctional officer sexual assault who are seeking monetary damages for the abuse they suffered.

While this is not Jae’s first historic decision involving Correctional Officer Sexual Abuse, this decision is a testament to Jae’s remarkable knowledge and expertise in this field. If you or a loved one have ever been a victim of correctional officer sexual assault, speak with a Prison Sexual Assault Lawyer today.

Our Client’s Story: Bureau of Prisons Overlooks Pattern of Sexually Abusive Behavior

Our client initially encountered Officer Hatten while she was working in an assignment that he oversaw; however, Officer Hatten began to target our client and made her perform work assignments for him alone. Officer Hatten’s behavior culminated in multiple violent sexual assaults against our client.

Upon further investigation, it was revealed that Officer Hatten had a reported history of engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with multiple incarcerated women prior to sexually assaulting our client. Furthermore, his behavior and reputation were reportedly well known by multiple staff members who neglected to intervene. It is a common pattern in prison sexual abuse for the perpetrating officer to escalate his conduct when other officers fail to intervene or investigate. In 2023, Officer Hatten pled guilty to sexual abuse of our client.

While United States governmental entities are subject to sovereign immunity, the FTCA authorizes a limited set of circumstances for plaintiffs to sue the United States Federal Government for the torts of its employees. Under the FTCA, Jaehyun Oh filed a lawsuit against the United States Federal Government which details the horrific sexual abuse that our client was forced to endure as well as BOP personnel’s negligence in failing to intervene and protect our client. As stated in the complaint,

“The repeated horrors that Officer Hatten inflicted on the Plaintiff occurred only as a direct result of the negligence, gross negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and deliberate indifference of numerous BOP officials, up and down the chain of command.” [1]

The complaint brought five claims forward under the FTCA for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, sexual battery, and sexual assault.

Historic Decision Denies Motion to Dismiss in Part

The United States moved to dismiss the entirety of the complaint, bringing forward a wide range of theories to prevent the case from moving forward. Although their motion was granted in part, the court rejected several of their arguments, which ultimately allowed the case to move forward and set an important precedent for similar claims.

Compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In their motion to dismiss, the United States alleged that the detailed narrative of Hatten’s repeated abuse presented in the complaint was not “simple, concise or direct,” and contained “repetitive, unnecessarily detailed, and at times, wholly irrelevant allegations.” [2] On numerous occasions, the United States brought up the length of the complaint as a poor attempt to demonstrate that the complaint was “difficult to answer properly.” [3] Citing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States argued that the complaint should be dismissed on these grounds.

Jaehyun Oh’s response highlighted the hypocrisy inherent in the United States’ argument, stating, “it is unclear how the government expects Plaintiff to distill this complex case into a few pages, while also surviving its other substantive defenses.” [4]

The Court agreed with Jae’s assertion, pointing to the apparent contradiction that the United States created by claiming that the complaint is difficult to answer properly, while simultaneously submitting a “lengthy motion to dismiss addressing every one of Plaintiff’s claims.” [5] The Court stated,

“This Court will not dismiss a complaint because the United States’s lawyers find it unpleasant or challenging to read detailed allegations of abuse in its correctional facilities, particularly given the relatively high degree of detail that is generally required for such a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or failure to state a claim.” [6]

Overcoming the Discretionary Function Exception

At the heart of the debate in the United States’ motion to dismiss was the challenging question of whether the claims alleged in the complaint fall within the scope of the Discretionary Function Exception to the FTCA.

The Discretionary Function Exception preserves the Federal Government’s immunity when an employee’s behavior involves judgement or choice. For a claim to be excluded from the Discretionary Function Exception, the claim must satisfy two conditions:

1. Acts alleged to be negligent must be discretionary in that they involve an element of judgement, not compelled by federal statute, regulation, or policy; and,
2. The judgement or choice in question must be grounded in considerations of public policy.

The United States argued that the allegations in the complaint involved an element of discretion and therefore should be barred by the discretionary function exception. Their argument pointed to the fact that decisions regarding Hatten’s hiring, training, retention, and supervision implicate multiple policy considerations such as staffing, funding, privacy, and prisoner placement. [7] Therefore, according to their argument, both conditions of the discretionary function exception were satisfied.

The United States also contended that regulations mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and other BOP program statements are also subject to the exception because they involve an element of discretion regarding how to implement the standards and are also grounded in policy considerations.

However, in the precedent-setting decision in the District, the court held that, while it is true that some of the policies cited involve an element of discretion, such as in how to protect an inmate, “they remove BOP’s discretion to take no action.” [8] Furthermore, the court stated that even if the first condition of the discretionary function exception was met, there is no reason grounded in social, economic, and political policy for failing to report, investigate, or respond to sexual abuse of an inmate by a BOP officer. [9] Adopting Jae’s argument, the Court opined,

“Knowingly ignoring the sexual abuse of an inmate by a BOP officer is not a judgment “of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.”  [10]

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The United States also moved to dismiss the lawsuit by claiming that our client’s notice of claim, which is required to be submitted prior to filing a lawsuit against the federal government, did not provide sufficient information for the BOP to investigate the claims alleged in the lawsuit. [11] Their argument alleged that the notice of claim presented a different set of facts than the lawsuit since the notice of claim did not explicitly state the names of all the officers who neglected Officer Hatten’s abusive behavior.

In her response, Jae argued that the notice of claim requirement does not exist to place “unduly burdensome barriers of technicalities on the claimants.” [12] Specifically, Jae pointed out that the United States Federal Government has substantially more information available to investigate and collect further testimony when investigating a claim, and there is no support for the contention that a claimant needs to enumerate the identity of every correctional officer who failed to intervene.

Siding against the United States, the Court held that our client did provide enough information to implicate Officer Hatten’s coworkers and that a reasonable investigation would have involved interviewing the coworkers listed in the complaint. Thus, the court rejected the United States’ attempt to dismiss the entirety of the lawsuit on this ground.

Federal Prison Sexual Abuse Attorney

Unfortunately, sexual abuse against inmates is prevalent throughout prisons across the United States, even though the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) expressly prohibits any sexual contact between an officer an inmate.

Correctional officers maintain substantial authority over inmates’ daily lives as they are constantly aware of an inmate’s whereabouts and can influence their housing/work decisions. Therefore, any relationship between a correctional officer and inmate involves a substantial power imbalance such that consent cannot be freely given and revoked by the inmate.

The historic decision above paves the way for incarcerated victims of sexual abuse when pursuing a claim against their abusers.

If you or a loved one have ever been a victim of correctional officer sexual abuse, speak with a civil rights attorney today to discuss your rights.

Citations

[1] Second Amended Complaint at 44, Bonnie Hernandez v. United States of America, No. 4:23-cv-00319 (N.D.F.L. 2024).

[2] United States’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Response to the Second Amended Complaint at 11-12, Bonnie Hernandez v. United States of America, No. 4:23-cv-00319 (N.D.F.L. 2024).

[3] Id. at 12.

[4] Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint at 12, Bonnie Hernandez v. United States of America, No. 4:23-cv-00319 (N.D.F.L. 2024).

[5] Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 28, Bonnie Hernandez v. United States of America, No. 4:23-cv-00319 (N.D.F.L. 2025).

[6] Id.

[7] United States’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Response to the Second Amended Complaint at 23, Bonnie Hernandez v. United States of America, No. 4:23-cv-00319 (N.D.F.L. 2024).

[8] Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 20, Bonnie Hernandez v. United States of America, No. 4:23-cv-00319 (N.D.F.L. 2025).

[9] Id.

[10] Id. At 22.

[11] United States’ Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum of Law in Response to the Second Amended Complaint at 7, Bonnie Hernandez v. United States of America, No. 4:23-cv-00319 (N.D.F.L. 2024).

[12] Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint at 8, Bonnie Hernandez v. United States of America, No. 4:23-cv-00319 (N.D.F.L. 2024).