Matthews v. Steiner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JANICE VINSON MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID P. STEINER, Postmaster General,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-26-2889
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
This is the court’s fourth opinion arising out of Janice Vinson Matthews’s former
employment at the U.S. Postal Service. Because the procedural background of this matter is well-
known to the parties and the court, the court recounts it only briefly here. In June 2014, Matthews
sued the United States Postal Service for disability discrimination and retaliation based on events
that occurred in 2007 and 2012. 	Matthews v. Brennan, Civ. Action No. H-14-1825, 2017 WL
1956732 (S.D. Tex. May 11, 2017). 	In 2017, the court granted in part the Postal Service’s motion
for summary judgment and stayed the 2007 discrimination claims until an EEOC administrative
class action was resolved. Id. at *11.
In March 2025, after the EEOC determined that Matthews was not a part of the class action,
she tried to refile those same claims in a new case. 	Matthews v. Dejoy, Civ. Action No. H-25-
1329, 2025 WL 3672954 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2025). 	The court dismissed the 2007 retaliation
claims and the 2012 discrimination and retaliation claims, with prejudice, on the ground of res
judicata. Id. at *4. The court also dismissed the 2007 discrimination claims as duplicative of the
stayed claims in the prior case and ordered instead that the prior case be reopened. Id. The court
has since granted summary judgment to the Postal Service on the remaining 2007 discrimination
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02889 Document 17 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
claims in the reopened case. Matthews v. Steiner, No. H-14-1825, 2026 WL 1842588 (S.D. Tex.
June 25, 2026).
At a hearing in the reopened case, the court ordered that, if Matthews wanted to assert new
claims against the Postal Service based on alleged issues with her retirement benefits, she must do
so in a new suit, not the reopened suit. (Case No. 4:14-cv-01825, Docket Entry No. 131). This
case involves those new claims against the Postal Service based on the Office of Personnel
Management’s (“OPM”) determination of her retirement benefits and other allegedly related
issues, including a private organization’s denial of her application for full retiree membership.
(Docket Entry No. 1).
The Postal Service has moved to dismiss, or, alternatively, for summary judgment. (Docket
Entry No. 11). Matthews responded and moved to strike the motion to dismiss. (Docket Entry
No. 14). For the reasons stated below, the court grants the Postal Service’s motion to dismiss. The
court denies Matthews’s request to strike, which is based on the same allegations of untimely filing
that the court rejected when denying Matthews’s prior motion for sanctions. (Docket Entry No.
13).
The court first dismisses Matthews’s claims about OPM’s determination of her retirement
benefits1 (including her health and life insurance benefits).2 She admits that she has not appealed
1 Although Matthews lists the relevant statutes for her claims as Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, and the
ADA, (Docket Entry No. 1 at 1), her claims about retirement benefits appear to sound in the Retirement
Act.
2 Matthews’s complaint establishes that her health and life insurance claim is part of her OPM claim.
(Docket Entry No. 1 at 3–4). 	To the extent that Matthews is also trying to bring a separate disability
discrimination claim against the Postal Service based on alleged contradictory records that she was provided
by DOL-OWCP, (Docket Entry No. 1 at 6–7), however, she has failed to state a claim for relief under Rule
12(b)(6). All she alleges is that someone at DOL-OWCP provided unspecified “contradictory” information
to her, which does not state a disability discrimination claim (or any kind of claim) against the Postal
Service. And as the court explains elsewhere, it has already determined that the Postal Service did not
retaliate or discriminate against Matthews in 2007 and 2012.
Case 4:26-cv-02889 Document 17 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
OPM’s decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. (Docket Entry No. 14 at 3). Because she
did not do so, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. 	See Sanders v. U.S.
Postal Servs. Off. of Personnel Mgmt., No. 3:15-CV-2207-G, 2017 WL 879223, at *5–6 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 6, 2017); see also Strausbaugh v. USAF, No. 1:24-cv-00276-LG-RPM, 2025 WL
103206, at *1–2 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 15, 2025). It is well-settled that “plaintiffs bear the burden of
establishing the subject matter jurisdiction of this court.” Sanders, 2017 WL 879223, at *6 (N.D.
Tex. Mar. 6, 2017). 	Because Matthews has not met her burden of showing that this court has
subject matter jurisdiction over her claims related to OPM’s determination of her benefits, the
court dismisses them, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.3
Matthews’s remaining claim is based on the denial of her application for Full Retiree
Membership by the National Association of Letter Carriers (“NALC”).4 (Docket Entry No. 1 at
5–6). There is no basis for a disability discrimination claim against the Postal Service based on
NALC’s denial of benefits. To the extent that Matthews is merely attempting to relitigate (again)
her 2007 and 2012 discrimination and retaliation claims, she is barred by issue preclusion. 	See
Matthews, 2025 WL 3672954, at *4; Matthews, 2026 WL 1842588, at *2–4. 	What is left after
issue preclusion is insufficient to state a claim against the Postal Service, which does not own or
operate NALC.
3 Matthews asserts in her response brief that the issue is not just OPM’s denial of benefits, but also the
Postal Service’s providing false information to OPM, which led to the denial of benefits. (Docket Entry
No. 14 at 5). But Matthews has still not articulated why she may bring this claim directly in federal court
rather than first proceeding through the necessary administrative procedures. In short, Matthews bore the
burden of demonstrating that this court had subject-matter jurisdiction, and she has not met that burden.
4 Matthews identifies only three claims in her response brief: her claim based on OPM’s denial of benefits,
her claim based on NALC’s denial of full retiree membership, and her claim based on her health and life
insurance benefits. (Docket Entry No. 14 at 5).
Case 4:26-cv-02889 Document 17 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
Finally, the court denies Matthews’s request to strike the motion to dismiss. (Docket Entry
No. 14). 	The basis for the request is largely that the Postal Service failed to comply with this
court’s schedule for filing the motion to dismiss. (Id.). That schedule was articulated in a hearing
in a different case involving these same parties. (Docket Entry No. 13). As the court explained
when denying Matthews’s separate motion for sanctions based on this same issue, however, the
court never entered a formal scheduling order in this case, and service was not complete until April
30 and May 1, 2026. (Id.). There was no basis for sanctions based on the Postal Service’s filing
of its motion to dismiss on June 15, 2026, and there is no basis for this court to strike the motion
to dismiss for the same reasons.
In summary, the court grants the motion to dismiss. (Docket Entry No. 11). The claims
related to OPM’s benefits determinations are dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The remaining claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
The court denies Matthews’s motion to strike. (Docket Entry No. 14). The court will separately
enter an order dismissing this case.
SIGNED on July 14, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Senior United States District Judge
Case 4:26-cv-02889 Document 17 Filed 07/14/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4