IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40077

CASCABEL CATTLE COMPANY, L.L.C., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SONNY PERDUE, Secretary of 

Agriculture (or his successor); KEVIN SHEA, Administrator of the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service of the USDA (or his successor), 

 Defendants - Appellees

************************************************************************

Consolidated with 19-40086

JUAN DELGADILLO, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SONNY PERDUE, Secretary of 

Agriculture (or his

successor); KEVIN SHEA, Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service of the USDA (or his successor),

 Defendants - Appellees

************************************************************************

Consolidated with 19-40134

LUIS RAMIREZ; SANTIAGO MARTINEZ,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-40077

c/w 19-40086, 19-40134

2

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SONNY PERDUE, Secretary of 

Agriculture (or his

successor); KEVIN SHEA, Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service of the USDA (or his successor), 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and HO, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-Appellants—Cascabel Cattle Company, Juan Delgadillo, Luis 

Ramirez, and Santiago Ramirez (“plaintiffs”)—sued the United States, the 

Secretary of Agriculture, and the Administrator of the United States 

Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(“defendants”), alleging violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). 

Plaintiffs seek monetary damages associated with their loss of livestock

following the implementation of a temporary fever tick quarantine. We 

AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because the 

defendants’ challenged actions fall under the quarantine exception to the 

FTCA. 

I

Plaintiffs own cattle that they raise for sale in Cameron County, Texas. 

In 2014, the Texas Animal Health Commission (“TAHC”) declared a temporary 

fever tick quarantine that included the land where the plaintiffs’ cattle were 

being raised. As a result, restrictions were placed on the movement and sale of 

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-40077

c/w 19-40086, 19-40134

3

the plaintiffs’ cattle, and the plaintiffs were required to submit their livestock 

for inspection and treatment. The quarantine was part of the Fever Tick 

Eradication Program—a joint effort between the United States Department of 

Agriculture (“USDA”) and TAHC—to eradicate fever ticks. Fever ticks are

destructive to livestock because they carry protozoan parasites that cause the 

often-fatal cattle disease babesiosis. 

The Fever Tick Eradication Program is governed by both federal and 

state regulations. See 9 C.F.R. §§ 72.1–72.25; 4 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §§ 41.1–

41.22. Among other things, these regulations classify all cattle in a quarantine 

zone as infected, restrict the movement of infected cattle beyond the 

quarantine area, and list the specific pesticides and methods of application to 

be used for treatment. 9 C.F.R. §§ 72.1, 72.11, 72.13, 72.25; 4 TEX. ADMIN. CODE

§§ 41.4–41.6, 41.8. The restricted-use pesticide cuomaphos, or Co-Ral, is 

approved for government use in quarantine zones as a “25 percent wettable 

powder or flowable form labeled for use as a 0.25 percent dip and used at a 

concentration of 0.125 to 0.250.” 9 C.F.R. § 72.13(b). The government is 

required to administer Co-Ral by “thoroughly wetting the entire skin by either 

immersion in a chemical solution in a dip vat, or by spraying with a chemical 

solution using a spray-dip machine or a hand-held sprayer.” Id. § 72.25.

Co-Ral’s label also contains instructions regarding its use. Relevantly, 

the label warns “not [to] spray in a confined, non-ventilated area” and provides 

instructions on how to properly mix Co-Ral for both spray and dip treatment. 

The label also states, “It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a 

manner inconsistent with its labeling.” See 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G) (“It shall 

be unlawful for any person to use any registered pesticide in a manner 

inconsistent with its labeling . . . .”). 

Plaintiffs claim that their cattle suffered injury and death as a result of 

the defendants’ actions during the quarantine. They claim that government 

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-40077

c/w 19-40086, 19-40134

4

personnel negligently rounded up cattle for treatment using chutes and roping, 

resulting in the death of at least 14 cattle. They also allege that the 

government’s application of Co-Ral by spray box and dipping vat violated the 

Co-Ral label and led to the injury and death of more cattle. 

The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding no jurisdiction because 

plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the quarantine exception to the FTCA. The 

district court also found that Cascabel Cattle Company failed to exhaust its 

administrative remedies for its claims related to the use of a spray box, as 

required by the FTCA. Because we AFFIRM dismissal based on the quarantine 

exception, we need not address the exhaustion issue. 

II

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. See Ordonez Orosco v. Napolitano, 598 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 

2010). 

“The United States enjoys sovereign immunity from suit, meaning it 

cannot be sued without consent.” Gonzalez v. United States, 851 F.3d 538, 543 

(5th Cir. 2017). “[T]he existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.” 

United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488, 502 (2003). The FTCA provides 

a waiver of sovereign immunity and is “the sole basis of recovery for tort claims 

against the United States.” Gonzalez, 851 F.3d at 543. However, the FTCA’s 

waiver of sovereign immunity is subject to thirteen statutory exceptions. See

28 U.S.C. § 2680. If one of these exceptions applies, a federal court is without 

subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. Campos v. United States, 888 F.3d 

724, 730 (5th Cir. 2018). 

A waiver of the Government’s sovereign immunity is typically construed, 

“in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.” See Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 

192 (1996). However, the Supreme Court has clarified that this “general rule” 

is “unhelpful” in the context of the FTCA. Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-40077

c/w 19-40086, 19-40134

5

481, 491–92 (2006) (quoting Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848, 853 n.9 

(1984)).1 “[T]he proper objective of a court attempting to construe one of the 

subsections of 28 U.S.C. § 2680 is to identify those circumstances which are 

within the words and reason of the exception—no less and no more.” Id.

(quoting Kosak, 465 U.S. at 853 n.9). 

III

The quarantine exception to the FTCA states that the statute’s sovereign 

immunity waiver does not apply to “[a]ny claim for damages caused by the 

imposition or establishment of a quarantine by the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2680(f). The parties dispute the meaning of the terms “caused by” and 

“imposition or establishment.”2

“[W]ords in statutes are [typically] construed according to ‘their 

ordinary, contemporary, common meaning[s].’” Kennedy v. Tex. Utilities, 179 

F.3d 258, 261 (5th Cir. 1999) (alteration in original) (quoting Pioneer Inv. 

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993)). We often 

look to dictionary definitions for help in discerning a word’s ordinary meaning. 

See, e.g., United States v. Am. Commercial Lines, L.L.C., 875 F.3d 170, 175 (5th 

Cir. 2017); see also Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 571 U.S. 220, 227 (2014); Belt 

v. EmCare, Inc., 444 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e routinely consult 

dictionaries as a principal source of ordinary meaning.”).

1 To the extent our unpublished caselaw has suggested otherwise, it is not persuasive 

because it does not engage with the Supreme Court’s clarification in Dolan. See, e.g., Huff v. 

Neal, 555 F. App’x 289, 297 (5th Cir. 2014); Ashford v. United States, 463 F. App’x 387, 391 

(5th Cir. 2012); Jasper v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 414 F. App’x 649, 651 (5th Cir. 

2011); Patel v. United States, 398 F. App’x 22, 27 (5th Cir. 2010); Linn v. United States, 281 

F. App’x 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2008).

2 On appeal, the plaintiffs do not argue that Co-Ral treatments are not part of fever 

tick “quarantines.” When plaintiffs’ counsel was asked at oral argument whether the

quarantine encompasses the treatment, he responded affirmatively. Therefore, we do not 

decide this undisputed issue. 

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-40077

c/w 19-40086, 19-40134

6

At the time of the FTCA’s enactment, “establishment” was defined as 

“[t]he action of establishing; the fact of being established.” Establishment, 

OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1933). It also had an alternative definition of 

“‘establishing’ by law.” Id. The root, “establish,” was further defined as “[t]o fix 

settle, institute or ordain permanently, by enactment or agreement.” 

Establish, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (1933). “Imposition” was defined as 

“[t]he action of imposing or laying as a burden, duty, charge, or task; the action 

of inflicting, levying, enjoining, or enforcing.” Imposition, OXFORD ENGLISH 

DICTIONARY (1933). “The definition[s] of words in isolation however, [are] not 

necessarily controlling in statutory construction. . . . Interpretation of a word 

or phrase depends upon reading the whole statutory text, considering the 

purpose and context of the statute, and consulting any precedents or 

authorities that inform the analysis.” Dolan, 546 U.S. at 486. 

Beginning with context, “different words within the same statute should, 

if possible, be given different meanings.” BNSF Ry. Co. v. United States, 775 

F.3d 743, 755 n.86 (5th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Other cannons of 

statutory interpretation suggest the same. For example, the Supreme Court 

has noted that “or” is “almost always disjunctive.” Encino Motorcars, LLC v. 

Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1141 (2018). Here, a disjunctive interpretation of “or” 

would imply that “establishment” and “imposition” connotate different actions. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(f). Additionally, statutes should ordinarily be construed 

so that no words constitute surplusage. See Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 

303, 314 (2009). By applying independent significance to “establishment” and 

“imposition,” we help ensure that no part of the statute is “inoperative” or 

“insignificant.” See id. (citation omitted). Therefore, we agree with the district 

court that “establishment” of the quarantine refers to enactment of the 

quarantine, and “imposition” of the quarantine refers to the manner in which 

the quarantine is carried out and enforced. 

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-40077

c/w 19-40086, 19-40134

7

Looking next to precedent, we have previously stated that the words

“caused by” in the quarantine exception mean “proximately caused by.” Rey v. 

United States, 484 F.2d 45, 48 (5th Cir. 1973). We have also said that the crux 

of proximate cause is reasonable foreseeability. Johnson v. Greer, 477 F.2d 101, 

108 (5th Cir. 1973). Thus, the quarantine exception applies when a plaintiff’s 

damages are reasonably foreseeable based on the government’s decision to 

establish a quarantine or the government’s actions imposing the quarantine.

This interpretation is consistent with our discussion in Rey. There, the 

plaintiffs filed an FTCA claim alleging that a USDA veterinarian negligently 

diagnosed their hogs with fatal hog cholera, leading them to be injected with a 

live virus vaccine that killed 415 hogs. Rey, 484 F.2d at 46–47. The complaint 

alleged that the veterinarian ordered the hogs quarantined “at the time the 

initial testing was done,” and that the fatal vaccinations were performed 

because of the quarantine.” Id. at 47. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ 

claims pursuant to the quarantine exception. Id. We affirmed on the

alternative grounds that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by either 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2680(h), the misrepresentation exception, or by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(f), the 

quarantine exception. Id. at 50. In doing so, we provided some insight into the 

proper interpretation of the quarantine exception. Id. at 48. We explained that, 

“loss[es] in value occasioned by physical restraint on [live]stock for a period of 

time [and] losses caused by the forced exposure of healthy animals to diseased 

animals within the quarantine area” fall within the exception. Id. Claims of 

“negligence in the procedures . . . by which [the government] arrive[s] at a 

decision to impose a quarantine would also be barred by Section 2680(f).” Id.

Conversely, we explained that damages which are merely incidental to a 

quarantine, such as “damages caused by the negligent operation of a motor 

vehicle during the quarantine inspection process, would not in our judgment

be barred by Section 2680(f).” Id.

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-40077

c/w 19-40086, 19-40134

8

This interpretation also makes sense in light of the purpose of the 

quarantine exception. “The § 2680 exceptions are designed to protect certain 

important governmental functions and prerogatives from disruption.” Molzof 

v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 311 (1992). The very nature of quarantines is 

that they may increase the risk to some in order to protect many. By retaining 

its sovereign immunity, the government has permitted itself to exercise its

discretion in this sensitive area free from fear of litigation. 

Plaintiffs complain that government employees negligently rounded up 

their cattle and negligently treated them with Co-Ral. But the only reason the 

government rounded up plaintiffs’ cattle and treated them with Co-Ral was to 

enforce the temporary fever tick quarantine. Thus, as the district court noted, 

the plaintiffs’ damages are not “an unfortunate incidental harm that was only 

tangentially related to the quarantine.” Rather, plaintiffs’ damages were 

“caused by” the “implementation” of the quarantine. Therefore, defendants’ 

challenged actions fall within the quarantine exception to the FTCA.

Plaintiffs argue that this interpretation is unduly broad. They construe 

our interpretation as permitting “all government negligence touching a 

quarantine [to] be immune from suit.” We disagree. As we explained in Rey, 

the “caused by” element of the exception is an important limiting factor. 

Government actions, like negligent driving, that are merely incidental to the 

establishment and imposition of a quarantine do not fall within the quarantine 

exception. Our interpretation properly identifies those circumstances that are 

within the words and reason of the exception—no less and no more. See Dolan, 

546 U.S. at 491–92.

Plaintiffs also argue that our interpretation of the quarantine exception 

conflicts with 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G), which makes it unlawful “to use any 

registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” This argument 

misconstrues the nature of sovereign immunity. We hold only that a violation 

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/06/2020
No. 19-40077

c/w 19-40086, 19-40134

9

of 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G) does not provide a basis for recovery under the FTCA 

for plaintiffs whose damages were “caused by the imposition or establishment 

of a quarantine by the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(f). 

Finally, plaintiffs argue that we should consider whether the 

government acted unreasonably and violated the instruction on the Co-Ral 

label. These arguments go to the merits of the lawsuit. Because we lack 

jurisdiction, we do not consider the merits of the case. See Steel Co. v. Citizens 

for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). 

IV

For the forgoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

 Case: 19-40077 Document: 00515372558 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/06/2020