IHS is responsible as his employer. (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 21-23.) In Count II, Plaintiff again alleges that IHS knew or should have known that Bullis would sexually assault his patients, rather than provide psychological services, and therefore, IHS breached its duties “which proximately caused Mario to suffer the damages referenced.” (Id. ¶ 27.) Likewise, in Count III, Plaintiff avers that “IHS knew or should have known of Bullis* aberrant behavior, and knew or should have known that it had a duty to warn children and others who were likely to be subjected to Bullis of his aberrant sexual propensities” and that IHS’s breach of its duty to warn “proximately caused Mario to suffer ... damage.” (Id. ¶¶29, 30.) Court Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 885, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 111 (1980) (<HOLDING>). These claims are, therefore, excluded from
holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 holding that 28 usc  2680h bars suits against the government in all eases where the intentional tort was committed by a government employee holding that to establish tort liability in a negligence action there must be a legal duty on the part of the defendant to plaintiff holding where two offduty airmen committed rape assaults and murders attempt to establish liability on a negligence basis is  merely an effort to circumvent the retention of immunity provided in 28 usc  2680h holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury