context: Further, even assuming that there is some mandate requiring, generally, that waist chains be used for inmates such as Ashley, C. Warren is incorrect in arguing that the misapplication of the waist chain in this instance would open the BOP up to FTCA liability. The Court considers the application of restraints to be a delicate policy-balancing act involving considerations of the individual prisoner and the specific circumstances requiring the prisoner's restraint, similar to the discretionary decisions the BOP must make when designating inmates to particular facilities and placing inmates in cells with other inmates.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: "[I]f a regulation allows the employee discretion, the very existence of the regulation creates a strong presumption that a discretionary act authorized by the regulation involves consideration of the same polices which led to the promulgation of the regulations."
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 325, 111 S.Ct. 1267 (“[I]f a regulation allows the employee discretion, the very existence of the regulation creates a strong presumption that a discretionary act authorized by the regulation involves consideration of the same polices which led to the promulgation of the regulations.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 376 F.3d 1055, at 1060-61
citation_b.parenthetical: "Rather, when the relevant law leaves room for officials to exercise policy-oriented discretion in a particu lar area, that discretion will be protected even with regard to what may seem to be details of implementation."
citation_b.sentence: See Lopez v. United States, 376 F.3d 1055, at 1060-61 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Rather, when the relevant law leaves room for officials to exercise policy-oriented discretion in a particu lar area, that discretion will be protected even with regard to what may seem to be details of implementation.”)(emphasis added).