Johnson v. United States, Department of Justice, 694 F. App'x 748

Reginald Johnson, pro se, sued multiple federal agencies and officials after a third party illegally moved his mailbox, alleging various harms including mental anguish and civil-rights violations.
District court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed jurisdictional and merits rulings de novo, accepting Johnson’s factual allegations as true for 12(b)(6) purposes.
Johnson pleaded claims under federal criminal statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a mental anguish/tort claim, and Title VII (the latter later abandoned on appeal).
The court considered whether criminal statutes provide civil remedies, whether § 1981 applies to federal actors, and whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception bars Johnson’s mental-anguish claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245 create civil causes of action	Johnson asserted those statutes support civil relief for harms from mailbox interference	Defendants argued those are criminal statutes that supply no civil remedy	Dismissed — criminal statutes provide no private civil remedy
Whether § 1981 applies to federal agencies/officials	Johnson claimed racial/discrimination-type claim under § 1981 against federal actors	Defendants argued § 1981 protects against nongovernmental or state-color discrimination only, not federal actors	Dismissed — § 1981 does not reach federal agencies or officials
Whether mental anguish claim can proceed against the United States under FTCA	Johnson claimed government’s failure to enforce laws caused mental pain, seeking recovery under tort law	Defendants asserted FTCA bars suits based on discretionary law-enforcement or prosecutorial decisions (discretionary-function exception)	Dismissed — discretionary-function exception bars recovery for enforcement decisions
Title VII claim viability on appeal	Johnson referenced Title VII in the complaint	Defendants maintained the claim was not pursued on appeal	Abandoned on appeal — plaintiff failed to brief the issue

McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t, 501 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for 12(b)(1))
Butler v. Sheriff of Palm Beach Cty., 685 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for 12(b)(6))
Hanna v. Home Ins. Co., 281 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1960) (criminal statutes provide no civil remedies)
Love v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2002) (criminal statutes do not create civil causes of action)
Lee v. Hughes, 145 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 1998) (§ 1981 does not apply to federal actors)
O’Ferrell v. United States, 253 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001) (FTCA governs certain tort claims against the United States)
Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1967) (discretionary-function exception bars suits based on prosecutorial/enforcement discretion)
Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (prosecutorial decisions are classic discretionary functions exempt from FTCA liability)
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned)
Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se briefs are read liberally but unbriefed issues are deemed abandoned)

AFFIRMED.