Consequently, if a specific and intelligible constitutional mandate exists that is related to the alleged torts of the government agency, the Court will conclude that such action occurred during the performance of a function divested of discretion. In such an instance, therefore, the discretionary function exception will be inapplicable. Id. See also Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536-37, 108 S.Ct. 1954. The Court finds that no such “specific and intelligible” constitutional mandate exists with regard to the action complained of in this case; namely, the issuance of an LDP and initiation of debarment proceedings on the part- of HUD. In so holding, the Court is in line with the decisions of other courts reviewing the precise issue. See, e.g., Sloan v. United States, 236 F.3d 756 (D.C.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the plaintiffs have faded to allege
holding issuance of ldp to be a discretionary function and therefore recognizing no specific mandate by regulation or otherwise which renders the exception inapplicable recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver holding that there is no choice to be protected by the discretionary function exception when a federal statute regulation or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision  holding federal tort claims act discretionary function exception does not apply if prison personnel violate a mandatory regulation