Fannie Ssebanakitta v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, (Nan Raymond)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
FANNIE SSEBANAKITTA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
(Nan Raymond),
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 20-3242
(D.C. No. 6:20-CV-01167-EFM-GEB)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Pro-se plaintiff Fannie Ssebanakitta filed a complaint in Kansas state court
against Nan Raymond, who works for the United States Postal Service. Plaintiff
alleges that Ms. Raymond (1) refused to deliver mail “according to doctor[’s] orders,”
(2) failed to deliver mail, and (3) destroyed property. In later filings and before this
court, Plaintiff alleges all of this conduct occurred on a discriminatory basis as she and
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 23, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-3242 Document: 010110511987 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
her family are Black. The Government removed the case to federal district court and
filed a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, holding that the Postal Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s claims, and to the extent that any of Plaintiff’s claims are torts claims
covered by the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”), those claims are barred because
Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
Plaintiff now appeals the final judgment, asserting the district court erred in
dismissing her claims. She first argues the district court erred because she’s
“exhausted all federal and local administrative remedies.” Plaintiff attaches several
letters (presumably sent to the post office) complaining of misconduct to support this
claim. But these letters were not part of the district court record, and even if they were,
they do not comport with the exhaustion requirements of the FTCA. A claim is deemed
“presented” when a federal agency receives from the claimant “written notification of
the incident, accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 14.2(a); see also Kendall v. Watkins, 998 F.2d 848, 852 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding
that “a series of letters” is insufficient to present an adequate claim to an agency for
the purposes of the FTCA if they do not state a claim for a sum certain).
Plaintiff also contends the district court erred in failing to apply Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act to her claims. She did not, however, allege a Title VII claim before
the district court, and we typically do not consider arguments raised for the first time
on appeal. See United States v. Jarvis, 499 F.3d 1196, 1201 (10th Cir. 2007). Even if
we did entertain Plaintiff’s new claim, Title VII does not apply. Title VII protects
Appellate Case: 20-3242 Document: 010110511987 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
against discrimination in an employment context. See Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d
994, 997 (10th Cir. 1991) (explaining that Title VII protections only apply where there
is some employment relationship). Plaintiff does not allege that she is an employee or
applicant for employment with the United States Postal Service. Therefore, Title VII
is inapplicable. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.
In sum, Plaintiff fails to present any legally or factually adequate basis for
reversal. In a well-reasoned order, the district court competently explained why it
lacked jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s allegations. For the purpose of resolving this
appeal, we have thoroughly reviewed the district court record, Plaintiff’s appellate
brief, and the Government’s response brief. We discern no reversible error. Where
the district court accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose in writing at
length. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM for
substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order dismissing
Plaintiff’s complaint. We GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-3242 Document: 010110511987 Date Filed: 04/23/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --