Strozier v. Potter

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 4 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JIMMY L. STROZIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 03-1126
v. (D. Colorado)
JACK POTTER, Postmaster General, (D.C. No. 02-N-379 (CBS))
United States Postal Service,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Pro se Plaintiff Jimmy L. Strozier appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his Title VII lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Concluding that
Plaintiff failed to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of exhausting his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit, the district court dismissed his case
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
with prejudice. We agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction. But because a
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice, we
must reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s case without
prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Plaintiff is employed by the United States Postal Service (USPS).
Defendant Jack Potter is Postmaster General of the United States. Plaintiff
alleges that he suffered race and sex discrimination in the workplace, and that he
was retaliated against for engaging in activity protected by Title VII. Plaintiff
initially filed an informal complaint about the alleged discrimination with the
USPS’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office and began pursuing his
complaints through the USPS’s internal process. On February 19, 2002, however,
Plaintiff withdrew his EEO complaint. That same day he filed a motion in federal
district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis
with a civil lawsuit. His pro se complaint was filed on February 26.
Defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that
Plaintiff had failed to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of exhausting his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Khader v. Aspin, 1 F.3d 968,
970-71 (10th Cir. 1993). The matter was referred to a magistrate judge, who
recommended that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed based on the jurisdictional defect
-2-
noted by Defendant. The magistrate judge also recommended that Plaintiff be
denied leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court rejected those
objections, adopting the report and recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff’s
case with prejudice.
On appeal Plaintiff does not challenge the district court’s decision
regarding his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He argues only that the
court erred by dismissing his claim with prejudice, contending that dismissals for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice. We agree.
A district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be
without prejudice. See Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Assoc., 182 F.3d 121, 123-24
(2d Cir. 1999) (“Article III deprives federal courts of the power to dismiss a case
with prejudice where federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist.”); In re
Orthopedic “Bone Screw” Prod. Liab. Litig., 132 F.3d 152, 155 (3d Cir. 1997)
(“If a case, over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, was originally
filed in federal court, it must be dismissed. . . . The disposition of such a case
will, however, be without prejudice.”); cf. Hollander v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 289
F.3d 1193, 1216-17 (10th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction
should be without prejudice). Thus, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal
-3-
with prejudice and REMAND with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s case without
prejudice.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-4-