Presentment Is Jurisdictional and Dismissal Must Be Without Prejudice: The Fifth Circuit’s FTCA Clarification and Strict Limitations Enforcement in Williams v. United States

Introduction

In Williams v. United States, No. 25-30250 (5th Cir. Nov. 3, 2025) (summary calendar) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed—while slightly modifying—the district court’s dismissal of a pro se action attempting to bring a wide array of claims against federal defendants, federal officials, and two private banks. The case touches three legal fronts: (1) jurisdictional requirements under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), especially the “presentment” prerequisite; (2) the FTCA’s six-month filing deadline following an agency’s final denial; and (3) limitations/prescription that doom belated federal and state claims against private actors.

The principal takeaway—and the rule reflected in the opinion’s modification—is that unpresented FTCA claims must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice. The court also enforced strict time bars against the plaintiffs’ remaining FTCA and private-party claims. Although unpublished, the decision synthesizes controlling Fifth Circuit and statutory authority in a concise application to a complex factual timeline spanning more than two decades.

Summary of the Opinion

Parties and background: Pro se plaintiffs Peter and Alfreda Williams sued the United States; the President and Vice President; the USDA and senior officials; and two private banks—Guaranty Bank & Trust Company (GBTC) and First Guaranty Bank (FGB). The claims arose from (a) GBTC loans (2000/2002) ending in foreclosure and a 2011 sheriff’s sale; (b) a 2020 guaranteed farm loan application through FGB resulting in a 2021 ineligibility determination; and (c) a USDA OASCR program discrimination complaint denied by final agency action in March 2022.
District court ruling: Dismissed under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of jurisdiction and as time-barred.
Fifth Circuit disposition: The court modified the judgment to dismiss unpresented FTCA claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and otherwise affirmed. The court also held that any FTCA discrimination claim was filed outside the statute of limitations, and that all claims against GBTC and FGB were prescribed or time-barred.

Key Timeline

2000 & 2002: Plaintiffs execute GBTC loans.
2004: GBTC begins foreclosure.
2011: Sheriff’s sale of the property.
Aug. 31, 2020: Plaintiffs request a USDA guaranteed farm loan through FGB.
Mar. 9, 2021: FGB requests eligibility information; later deems Plaintiffs ineligible under 7 C.F.R. § 764.352(f).
May 11, 2021: Plaintiffs file discrimination complaint with USDA OASCR.
Mar. 3–4, 2022: OASCR issues and electronically mails its final decision denying the discrimination complaint.
Sept. 16, 2023: OASCR mails the decision again by certified mail.
Mar. 20, 2024: Plaintiffs file suit in federal court.
Nov. 3, 2025: Fifth Circuit affirms as modified.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Spriggs v. United States, 132 F.4th 376, 379 (5th Cir. 2025): Anchors the central holding that FTCA “presentment” is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Because jurisdiction is lacking, dismissal must be without prejudice. The panel corrects the district court’s with-prejudice dismissal of the unpresented negligent-investigation claim, expressly citing Spriggs for that remedial adjustment.
Galvin v. OSHA, 860 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1988): Confirms the United States is the sole proper defendant in an FTCA suit. The court therefore rejects FTCA claims against agencies (USDA), officials (the President, Vice President, and USDA secretaries), and private entities (FGB, GBTC).
Cook v. United States, 978 F.2d 164, 166 (5th Cir. 1992): Defines FTCA presentment: a claimant must supply an agency with “facts sufficient to allow [the] claim to be investigated.” The panel uses Cook to distinguish between the plaintiffs’ underlying OASCR discrimination complaint and their new judicial claim alleging negligent investigation—an analytically different claim requiring separate presentment.
Life Partners Inc. v. United States, 650 F.3d 1026, 1030 (5th Cir. 2011): Supports the jurisdictional consequence of non-presentment: federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over unpresented FTCA claims.
Willoughby v. U.S. ex rel. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 730 F.3d 476, 479 (5th Cir. 2013): Establishes the de novo standard of review for Rule 12 dismissals, applied here.
Johnson v. Harris County, 83 F.4th 941, 945 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Petrobras Am., Inc. v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 9 F.4th 247, 253 (5th Cir. 2021)): Authorizes Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on limitations grounds when the complaint itself shows untimeliness and pleads no basis for tolling. The court applies this to the FTCA six-month window and to other statutory and state-law claims.

Statutes and Regulations Applied

FTCA presentment, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a): Suit may be brought only after an administrative claim is presented to the appropriate federal agency and finally denied.
FTCA statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b): Suit must be filed within six months after the mailing of the agency’s final denial. The court enforces this six-month period.
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b): The longer of 6 years or 3 years from knowledge by a responsible U.S. official, capped by a 10-year longstop.
Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e): The court describes a maximum limitations period of three years; plaintiffs’ claims are far older.
Farm Service Agency eligibility, 7 C.F.R. § 764.352(f): Cited as the basis for FGB’s ineligibility determination.
Louisiana prescription for delictual actions: Formerly one year under La. Civ. Code art. 3492 (pre–July 1, 2024). The 2024 amendment (Act 423) extended the period to two years prospectively; the prior one-year period governs earlier conduct. See La. Civ. Code art. 3493.1.

Legal Reasoning

Unpresented FTCA claim (negligent investigation) is jurisdictionally barred and must be dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs’ OASCR filing alleged program discrimination. Their subsequent lawsuit added a different claim: negligent investigation by OASCR. Under Cook, presentment turns on facts, not labels. Because the OASCR complaint necessarily could not have contained facts about OASCR’s future investigative conduct—and because plaintiffs did not present any negligent-investigation claim thereafter—the new FTCA tort claim was never presented to the “appropriate federal agency.” Under Spriggs and Life Partners, non-presentment withdraws jurisdiction from the courts. The panel corrects the district court’s with-prejudice dismissal and orders dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Any FTCA discrimination claim was untimely under § 2401(b)’s six-month filing window. The USDA issued a final decision March 3, 2022, and emailed it March 4, 2022; it mailed the decision again by certified mail on September 16, 2023. Suit was filed March 20, 2024—outside six months even if the court uses the later September 2023 mailing date. Under Johnson/Petrobras, a complaint that on its face misses the limitations deadline and pleads no tolling can be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Private-party claims are prescribed/time-barred.
- GBTC (2000/2002 loans; 2011 sheriff’s sale): Any FCA or TILA claims are long out of time, even under their longest conceivable limits (10 years under FCA’s cap; 3 years under TILA’s outer boundary referenced by the court). Louisiana tort claims (then one-year prescription) would have expired long ago.
- FGB (2020 application; 2021 ineligibility; March 2022 OASCR final decision): Even giving plaintiffs the benefit of a March 2022 accrual, the Louisiana one-year period expired by March 2023. Filing in March 2024 is untimely.
Only the United States is a proper FTCA defendant. The opinion reiterates Galvin’s principle: FTCA suits cannot proceed against agencies, individual federal officials, or private actors. That resolves the improper inclusion of the President, Vice President, USDA, USDA officials, and the two banks as FTCA defendants.

Impact and Guidance for Future Cases

Presentment remains a non-negotiable jurisdictional prerequisite for FTCA claims—and dismissal must be without prejudice. Williams reinforces recent Fifth Circuit authority (Spriggs) that courts lack power to adjudicate FTCA claims that were never administratively presented. Litigants who add new tort theories later (such as “negligent investigation” arising from an agency’s handling of an earlier complaint) must separately present those new claims to the appropriate agency before filing suit. If they do not, dismissal will be jurisdictional and without prejudice.
“Without prejudice” may be cold comfort if the administrative and judicial deadlines have already run. The FTCA also requires timely presentment (within two years of accrual) and timely suit (within six months of the agency’s final denial). Even if a court dismisses without prejudice for want of presentment, a claimant may find the window for curing presentment (or for refiling after a denial) closed. Williams implicitly illustrates this risk, given the March 2022 timeline.
Strict enforcement of the six-month FTCA filing window. The panel did not need to resolve whether electronic transmittal constitutes “mailing” under § 2401(b) because the plaintiffs missed the deadline even under the later certified-mail date. The practical signal is clear: treat the earliest notice as the safe trigger, and file within six months.
Attempting to revive long-stale private-party disputes will fail under federal and state limitations regimes. Williams shows the futility of repackaging decades-old lending and foreclosure events as FCA, TILA, or tort claims. The longest applicable statutes (FCA’s 10-year cap) could not reach conduct that ended by 2011 when suit was filed in 2024. Louisiana’s 2024 extension to a two-year tort period does not revive claims already prescribed under the prior one-year rule.
Proper party alignment matters. Plaintiffs cannot sue federal officials or agencies under the FTCA; the United States is the only proper defendant. Including improper defendants invites dismissal and distraction.
Publication status and precedential weight. The opinion is unpublished and on the summary calendar (see 5th Cir. R. 47.5), limiting its precedential effect. Nonetheless, it cogently applies and harmonizes existing binding authorities and will be persuasive in district courts across the circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

FTCA “presentment”: Before suing the United States in tort, you must first present your claim to the relevant agency with enough facts that the agency can investigate. This is not a mere formality; it is jurisdictional. If you skip this, the court cannot hear your case.
“Without prejudice” vs. “with prejudice”: A dismissal without prejudice does not decide the merits and allows refiling if the defect can be cured (for example, by properly presenting to the agency and refiling within applicable deadlines). A dismissal with prejudice is final as to the claim and generally bars refiling.
FTCA six-month clock: After the agency sends its final denial (traditionally by certified or registered mail), you have six months to sue. Miss that window, and the claim is time-barred unless a recognized tolling doctrine applies and is adequately pleaded.
Limitations vs. prescription (Louisiana): Louisiana uses “prescription” where other jurisdictions say “statute of limitations.” Before July 1, 2024, most tort claims prescribed in one year. A 2024 change extended the period prospectively to two years; it does not revive claims that had already prescribed.
Only the United States is an FTCA defendant: You cannot sue agencies or officers under the FTCA; the United States must be named as the defendant.
Equitable tolling (context): Although not discussed in this opinion, the Supreme Court has held FTCA time limits are subject to equitable tolling in appropriate circumstances. But a complaint must plausibly allege facts supporting tolling; absent such allegations, dismissal at the pleading stage is proper.

Conclusion

Williams v. United States is a compact but instructive decision. It reaffirms that FTCA presentment is jurisdictional and that unpresented FTCA claims must be dismissed without prejudice. It also underscores the rigor with which courts enforce the FTCA’s six-month filing deadline and the futility of trying to resuscitate decades-old lending and foreclosure disputes under federal or state statutes with short or capped limitations periods. While unpublished, the opinion synthesizes Spriggs, Galvin, Cook, Life Partners, and the Fifth Circuit’s pleading-stage limitations doctrine to provide a clear roadmap: present every FTCA theory to the proper agency; sue only the United States; file within six months of the final denial; and do not expect generous revival of stale claims. Practitioners and pro se litigants alike should heed its timeline discipline and party-alignment requirements.

Key Citations

28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (FTCA presentment); § 2401(b) (six-month window after final denial)
Spriggs v. United States, 132 F.4th 376 (5th Cir. 2025)
Galvin v. OSHA, 860 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1988)
Cook v. United States, 978 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1992)
Life Partners Inc. v. United States, 650 F.3d 1026 (5th Cir. 2011)
Johnson v. Harris County, 83 F.4th 941 (5th Cir. 2023)
Petrobras Am., Inc. v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 9 F.4th 247 (5th Cir. 2021)
31 U.S.C. § 3731(b) (FCA limitations)
15 U.S.C. § 1640(e) (TILA limitations)
7 C.F.R. § 764.352(f) (FSA guaranteed loan eligibility)
La. Civ. Code arts. 3492 (pre–July 1, 2024), 3493.1; 2024 La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 423 (H.B. 315)