Court Opinion

ID: 9941694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 19:01:47.054082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:56.335313
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30547        Document: 00517066600             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/16/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-30547
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                              February 16, 2024
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Jackhai Nguyen,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   United States Postal Service, of the United States
   Government,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:22-CV-3801
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff Jackhai Nguyen appeals the district court’s dismissal of her
   claim against the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). Because the
   district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, we AFFIRM

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30547        Document: 00517066600              Page: 2       Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                          No. 23-30547

   the dismissal but REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of
   modifying it as a dismissal without prejudice.
           Nguyen initiated this suit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act
   (“FTCA”), alleging damages based on USPS’s loss of a diamond tennis
   bracelet from the packaging. Upon USPS’s motion, the district court
   dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter
   jurisdiction. 1
           We always have jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction, United States v.
   Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002), and “[w]e conduct a de novo review of
   orders granting the Government’s motion to dismiss an FTCA complaint
   under Rule[] 12(b)(1),” Alfonso v. United States, 752 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir.
   2014) (quotation omitted). The plaintiff has the burden of proving subject-
   matter jurisdiction. Willoughby v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 730 F.3d
   476, 479 (5th Cir. 2013). Here, we agree with the district court that Nguyen’s
   claim fails for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for three independent
   reasons.
           First, Nguyen failed to allege her exhaustion of administrative
   remedies. The FTCA provides that “[a]n action shall not be instituted upon
   a claim against the United States for money damages . . . unless the claimant
   shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim

           _____________________
           1
             Nguyen contends the district court erred by dismissing her claim without
   providing her an opportunity to amend. However, she did not amend as a matter of course
   or request leave to amend. Cf. Von Eschen v. League City Tex., No. 00-20059, 2000 WL
   1468838, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2000) (per curiam) (concluding the district court erred by
   refusing to consider plaintiff’s Rule 15(a) amendment when reviewing defendant’s motion
   to dismiss). Nor does she provide any authority requiring courts to invite such amendment
   from a represented party. Cf. Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 991 (5th Cir. 1981)
   (requiring district courts to afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend and show
   administrative exhaustion instead of outright dismissal).

                                                    2
Case: 23-30547      Document: 00517066600           Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                     No. 23-30547

   shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)
   (emphasis added). We have long held that administrative exhaustion is a
   jurisdictional requisite to filing an FTCA action. Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d
   199, 203–04 (5th Cir. 1981). Because Nguyen failed to allege that she notified
   USPS at all, the district court lacked jurisdiction over her claim.
          Second, Nguyen improperly named USPS as the defendant in this
   case. The FTCA vests district courts with “exclusive jurisdiction of civil
   actions on claims against the United States, for money damages.” 28 U.S.C.
   § 1346(b)(1). Thus, “[t]he United States, and not the agency itself, is the
   proper defendant in an FTCA action.” Famer v. La. Elec. & Fin. Crimes Task
   Force, 553 F. App’x 386, 388–89 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Accordingly,
   the district court did not have jurisdiction over Nguyen’s FTCA claim
   against USPS. See Galvin v. OSHA, 860 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1988).
          Finally, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Nguyen’s claim
   regarding negligent handling of mail. The FTCA provides a limited waiver
   of sovereign immunity. However, this waiver includes a postal-matter
   exception, which preserves immunity for “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss,
   miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” 28 U.S.C.
   § 2680(b). “The Supreme Court made clear that in creating this exception,
   it was ‘likely that Congress intended to retain immunity, as a general rule,
   only for injuries arising, directly or consequentially, because mail either fails
   to arrive at all or arrives late, in damaged condition, or at the wrong
   address.’” Hale v. United States, No. 22-20426, 2023 WL 1795359, at *2 (5th
   Cir. Feb. 7, 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S.
   481, 489 (2006)), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 173 (2023). Here, Nguyen’s
   complaint alleges damages based on USPS’s loss of a diamond tennis
   bracelet. Her claim thus arises out of the loss of postal matter and is subject
   to the postal-matter exception. Accordingly, her claim is barred by sovereign
   immunity.

                                              3
Case: 23-30547      Document: 00517066600           Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                    No. 23-30547

          In sum, the district court did not err in dismissing Nguyen’s complaint
   for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. However, it erred in dismissing the
   complaint with prejudice. We have routinely held that a district court should
   dismiss a claim without prejudice when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
   See, e.g., Campos v. United States, 888 F.3d 724, 738 (5th Cir. 2018) (“The
   district court was without jurisdiction over [plaintiff’s] FTCA claims; thus,
   it was without authority to dismiss the claims with prejudice.”).
          Accordingly, we AFFIRM as to the dismissal of the complaint but
   REMAND to the district court to enter a modified order and final judgment
   that dismisses the suit without prejudice.

                                                4