Luis Ramirez v. USA, 955 F.3d 445

Plaintiffs (Cascabel Cattle Co., Juan Delgadillo, Luis Ramirez, Santiago Ramirez) raised cattle in Cameron County, Texas; a 2014 Texas Animal Health Commission temporary fever-tick quarantine covered their land.
The quarantine was part of a federal–state Fever Tick Eradication Program; federal and state regulations classified cattle in the zone as infected, restricted movement, and prescribed specific treatment methods and pesticides.
The restricted-use pesticide Co‑Ral was authorized for government use in quarantines by dip or spray; its label warns against spraying in confined, non‑ventilated areas and prescribes mixing/application methods.
Plaintiffs alleged government personnel negligently rounded up cattle and applied Co‑Ral (via spray box and dip) inconsistent with the label, causing injury and death to multiple cattle.
The district court dismissed the FTCA suit for lack of jurisdiction under the FTCA’s quarantine exception and found one plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal on the quarantine‑exception ground and did not reach exhaustion or the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FTCA quarantine exception (28 U.S.C. § 2680(f)) bars tort claims for harms from government rounding up and treating cattle during a quarantine	The government’s negligent roundup and improper Co‑Ral application caused the deaths and are torts outside the quarantine exception	The roundup and treatments were acts of implementing/enforcing the quarantine; damages were caused by the quarantine and thus barred by sovereign immunity	Held: Barred. Damages were proximately (reasonably foreseeably) caused by the imposition/implementation of the quarantine, so § 2680(f) applies
Whether violations of the pesticide‑labeling prohibition (7 U.S.C. § 136j) allow FTCA recovery despite the quarantine exception	Label violation creates a separate basis for recovery under the FTCA	Sovereign immunity under the quarantine exception precludes FTCA recovery even if label was violated	Held: Barred. A statutory pesticide‑label violation does not overcome § 2680(f); the court did not reach merits
Whether Cascabel exhausted administrative remedies for spray‑box claim (FTCA requirement)	Cascabel contended remedies satisfied or argued merits	Government argued lack of administrative exhaustion for that claim	Held: Not decided on appeal—court affirmed on quarantine exception and therefore did not address exhaustion

Rey v. United States, 484 F.2d 45 (5th Cir. 1973) (frames scope of quarantine exception; losses from restraint or forced exposure fall within exception)
Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481 (2006) (statutory terms must be construed to identify circumstances within words and reason of exception)
Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301 (1992) (FTCA exceptions protect important governmental functions)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional limits preclude reaching merits without jurisdiction)
Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (2009) (avoid statutory surplusage; give different words distinct meaning where possible)
Ordonez Orosco v. Napolitano, 598 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for jurisdictional dismissal)
Gonzalez v. United States, 851 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2017) (FTCA is sole basis for tort claims against the U.S.)
United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (consent to suit is prerequisite to jurisdiction)
Johnson v. Greer, 477 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 1973) (proximate cause in quarantine‑exception context; foreseeability standard)