that it can no longer be viewed as an exercise of “discretion” in attempting to comply with the BOP’s policy statement; and (2) that FCI Ray Brook also “enforce[d]” that policy inadequately, due to the negligent actions of its employees. It is true that Triestman, during oral argument before this panel, did not articulate the “negligent guard” theory for himself. But that is of no moment, as it was the obligation of the district court below to interpret Triestman’s complaint “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Pabon, 459 F.3d at 248 (citation omitted). B. Consideration of the negligent guard theory The negligent guard theory is a theory of liability under the FTCA over which the district court clearly has subject matter jurisdiction. See Coulthurst, 214 F.3d at 109 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Triestman’s complaint should not
holding a park rangers decision to terminate an arrest falls within the discretionary function exception to the ftca because such decision was the classic example of conduct grounded in policy holding that a negligent guard theory would not fall under the discretionary function exception because sjuch negligent acts neither involve an element of judgment or choice within the meaning of gaubert nor are grounded in considerations of governmental policy holding that scientific hydrographic judgment and purely scientific considerations do not involve policy considerations and are not protected by the discretionary function exception 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 recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver