Background
Lebene Konan alleged that a USPS mail carrier and postmaster intentionally refused to deliver mail to two rental properties she owned in Euless, Texas, because of racial animus. She asserted state-law claims for nuisance, tortious interference with prospective business relations, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. She also brought equal-protection claims against the two postal employees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985.
The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice. The Fifth Circuit initially reversed the dismissal of the FTCA claims, reasoning that the statute’s postal exception did not cover intentional nondelivery, while affirming dismissal of the §§ 1981 and 1985 claims. The Supreme Court vacated that judgment and held that the postal exception does cover suits arising from intentional nondelivery, but left the Fifth Circuit to determine which claims were barred and which arguments Konan had preserved.
The Court’s Holding
On remand, the Fifth Circuit held that all four pleaded FTCA claims were barred by the postal exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b), as Konan conceded in supplemental briefing. Because the exception preserves the United States’ sovereign immunity, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims. The panel nevertheless modified the judgment because a jurisdictional dismissal must be without prejudice, not with prejudice.
The court also reaffirmed dismissal of Konan’s §§ 1981 and 1985 claims against the postal employees, explaining that the Supreme Court’s decision did not disturb its prior analysis of those claims. It declined to consider Konan’s newly raised theory that the United States could be directly liable for negligent supervision or her request to amend the complaint, and it expressed no view on that theory’s merits. The judgment was affirmed as modified to make only the FTCA dismissals without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- The FTCA’s postal exception bars claims arising from intentional as well as negligent nondelivery of mail.
- A dismissal based on an FTCA exception and sovereign immunity is jurisdictional and therefore must be entered without prejudice.
- Konan may file a new action asserting a supportable theory, potentially including negligent supervision, but the Fifth Circuit did not decide whether such a claim would survive the United States’ defenses.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the postal exception while emphasizing an important limit on jurisdictional judgments: a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction cannot enter a merits-based dismissal with prejudice carrying claim-preclusive effect.
For practitioners, the ruling also illustrates the distinction between rejecting a newly raised appellate theory and foreclosing it altogether. The modified judgment leaves Konan free to attempt a properly pleaded new claim in district court, without suggesting that the claim is viable.