Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08041/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08041-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 The Defendant has been improperly named “Don” E. Potter.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bartlett Elliot,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Don E. Potter, Postmaster General, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-8041-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant John E. Potter’s1

 Motion to Dismiss for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (Doc. #

5) The Court has considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the applicable law and

now enters its ruling.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Bartlett Elliot originally filed this action in the Kingman, Arizona, Justice

Court on February 19, 2008. (Doc. # 1, Ex. A, p.5) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that

he is suing Defendant Postmaster General John E. Potter for failing “to produce numerous

pieces of 1st Class mail” in a timely manner at post offices in Bellingham, Washington,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Kingman, Arizona. Plaintiff contends that this missing mail

Case 3:08-cv-08041-MHM Document 9 Filed 03/26/09 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

contains Social Security checks, business checks, and other important items. Plaintiff seeks

$10,000 in damages for “mental anguish, anxiety and despair.”

Defendant removed this action to the District Court on April 10, 2008. (Doc. # 1)

Thereafter, Defendant moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss,” which the Court will

construe as a Response. (Doc. # 7) Defendants thereafter filed a Reply. (Doc. # 8)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

attacks the sufficiency of the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant claims that

Plaintiff’s Complaint is deficient on its face. In resolving a facial attack, the district court

accepts the allegations of the pleading as true and construes them in the light most favorable

to the claimant. Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). Dismissal is

improper unless “it appears beyond doubt that the claimant can prove no set of facts

supporting his claim that would entitle him to relief.” Id. (quoting Gibson v. United States,

781 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The Court must liberally construe pleadings submitted by a pro se claimant, affording

the claimant the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623

(9th Cir. 1988). Such liberal interpretation, however, “may not supply essential elements of

the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.

1982). 

III. THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT

The United States is immune from suit unless it has expressly waived its immunity

and consented to be sued. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). This

immunity applies to agencies of the United States. Balser v. Dep’t of Justice, 327 F.3d 903,

907 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2159 (2004). Actions arising out of a negligent

or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the federal government while acting within

the scope of his or her office or employment must be must be brought pursuant to the Federal

Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The United States is the only proper federal defendant in an

Case 3:08-cv-08041-MHM Document 9 Filed 03/26/09 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

action under the FTCA and there is no jurisdiction as to individual federal employees. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1) and 2679(a); Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 1982).

Here, Plaintiff claims that his mail was not timely delivered by the Postal Service. Under the

Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., the FTCA specifically applies to tort

claims “arising out of the activities of the Postal Service.” 39 U.S.C. § 409(c). In addition,

the timely submission of an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency is a

jurisdictional prerequisite to an action under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); Landreth By

And Through Ore. v. United States, 850 F.2d 532, 533 (9th Cir. 1988). 

IV. DISCUSSION

In his Response, Plaintiff states that “it is now almost five (5) months and still no

mail.” Plaintiff claims that subject matter jurisdiction does exist and that he has envelopes

cancelled by the Postal Service “with yellow address changes adhered on the face[s]” as

evidence. Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to damages based upon the untimely delivery

of his mail. The Court, however, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address this claim

because 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) specifically excludes from the FTCA “[a]ny claim arising out

of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter.” See Sportique

Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan, 597 F.2d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 1979). In Dolan v. Postal Service, 546

U.S. 481 (2006), the Supreme Court determined that the terms “loss” and “miscarriage”

contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) both addressed “failings in the postal obligation to deliver

mail in a timely manner to the right address,” and the Court concluded that “negligent

transmission” must be similarly interpreted. Id. at 486-89. Thus Plaintiff’s tort claim arising

from the allegedly untimely delivery of his mail is barred under the FTCA. Accordingly,

although Plaintiff’s frustration at the failure to have his mail delivered in a timely manner is

understandable, the resolution and redress of the problem does not lie in a suit under the

FTCA.

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-08041-MHM Document 9 Filed 03/26/09 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 5)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2009.

Case 3:08-cv-08041-MHM Document 9 Filed 03/26/09 Page 4 of 4