Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00716/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00716-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

08cv716

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVA SANDERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv716 L (POR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE [doc. 

#3]; DIRECTING THE CLERK OF

THE COURT TO CLOSE THIS

CASE

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the above captioned case for lack of jurisdiction. 

The motion was set for June 16, 2008. On May 23, 2008, the Court advised plaintiff that

notwithstanding her pro se status, she was required to comply with the Civil Local Rules. 

Plaintiff’s attention was directed to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e.2): [E]ach party opposing a motion ...

shall file that opposition ... with the clerk and serve the ... movant’s attorney not later than 14

calendar days prior to the noticed hearing. CIV. L. R. 7.1(e.2)(emphasis in original). Plaintiff’s

opposition was due not later than June 2, 2008. Plaintiff was also advised that if she failed to

file an opposition within the time limitation noted above, the Court could construe that failure as

a consent to the granting of the motion. CIV. L.R. 7.1(f.3.c). To date, plaintiff has neither filed

an opposition to the motion to dismiss nor has she sought additional time in which to file an

opposition. Although permissible to summarily grant defendant’s motion, the Court will review

defendant’s motion on the merits.

Case 3:08-cv-00716-L-POR Document 5 Filed 06/12/08 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 08cv716

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, asserts she mailed a package through the United States Postal

Service (“USPS”) that was not delivered. Plaintiff brought this action against the USPS in the

Small Claims Court of California, County of San Diego, seeking damages in the amount of

$500.00. Defendant removed the case to federal court and now seeks dismissal of the case for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Discussion

Although plaintiff does not specify a cause of action in her complaint, the Court construes

the complaint as arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of

N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 774 (9th Cir. 1986). The United States, as a sovereign entity, is immune

from suit unless it has consented to be sued by waiving its sovereign immunity. United States v.

Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983). The FTCA provides the basis for jurisdiction against the

United States for tort actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679. But the FTCA provides certain exceptions

to the waiver of sovereign immunity. The terms of a waiver determine the scope of the court's

jurisdiction to hear the case. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586-87 (1941). 

There is an express exception to the waiver of immunity in the present case. Under 28

U.S.C. § 2680, the United States has not waived immunity for “[a]ny claim arising out of the

loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). 

As noted above, plaintiff alleges that the Postal Service failed to deliver a package she sent. 

ecause the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to plaintiff’s claim,

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

In addition to the exception to the waiver of immunity discussed above, plaintiff has

failed to show that she filed an administrative claim. It is well documented that under the FTCA,

a plaintiff must first file an administrative claim as a jurisdictional prerequisite before bringing a

claim against the United States. 28 U.S.C. §2675(a). Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502

(9th Cir. 2000). In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. §2675(a) provides that (emphasis added):

An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money

Case 3:08-cv-00716-L-POR Document 5 Filed 06/12/08 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

1 As discussed above, the United States has not waived sovereign immunity over

claims arising from “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters;”

therefore, plaintiff cannot amend her complaint to state a claim.

3 08cv716

damages for injury or loss of personal property or personal injury or death caused

by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government

while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant

shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his

claim shall have been finally denied by the agency.

Plaintiff needed to file an administrative claim and exhaust her administrative remedies

before seeking relief from this Court. Because she has not filed an administrative claim, this

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and dismissal is warranted on this basis.

Plaintiff names only the USPS, which is a federal agency, as the only defendant. The

USPS is not a proper party under the FTCA. The FTCA provides the United States is the sole

party that may be sued for personal injuries arising out of the negligence of its employees. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2679(a); Allen v. Veterans Admin., 749 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Individual agencies of the United States may not be sued. Pink v. Modoc Indian Health Project,

Inc., 157 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir.1998); Allen, 749 F.2d at 1388. 

Because plaintiff did not name the United States as the defendant, and the USPS as a

federal agency may not be sued, plaintiff’s complaint against the USPS must be dismissed.

For the reasons set forth above, defendant’s motion to dismiss this action is GRANTED

WITH PREJUDICE.

1

 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-00716-L-POR Document 5 Filed 06/12/08 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 08cv716

Case 3:08-cv-00716-L-POR Document 5 Filed 06/12/08 Page 4 of 4