Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04014/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04014-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett014dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO K. BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4014 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTIONS AS MOOT

(Docket Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the United States Post Office for delay in the

delivery of his mail. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiff

alleges that there was a twenty-four day delay in the delivery of his transcripts, sent to

him by his attorney. Plaintiff also claims that his mail is delayed to the slow service of

the post office. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and three

motions for appointment of counsel. The Court construes Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims as a

tort claim against the United States Post Office for delay in the delivery of mail and

concludes that the Defendant is immune from suit. Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS

the complaint. 

Case 5:05-cv-04014-JF Document 10 Filed 09/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett014dis 2

Based upon this dismissal, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 2, 3, 5, 7) will be DENIED as moot. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its

agencies from suit. See Loeffler v. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 554 (1988); Holloman v. Watt,

708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983) (waiver of immunity must be demonstrated by party

suing U.S.), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 958 (1984). In 1946, Congress passed the Federal Tort

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (“FTCA”), which waived the sovereign

immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees acting

within the scope of their employment. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475-76 (1994). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b), the United States retains sovereign immunity for tort claims

against it for “loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of the mails.” Anderson v.

United States Postal Serv., 761 F.2d 527, 528 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation and internal

quotations omitted). 

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:05-cv-04014-JF Document 10 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett014dis 3

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff alleges that the United States Post Office in Crescent City, California

delayed his transcripts mailed to him by his attorney for twenty-four days with no

explanation. Plaintiff also maintains that his mail has been delayed for up to one month. 

Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of $5,000,000 dollars in monetary damages and

injunctive relief through the loss of employment for the post office employees. See

Complaint at 3-4. 

Plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 are not cognizable because there is no state actor

involved, rather the United States Post Office is the Defendant. The Court construes

Plaintiff’s complaint as an allegation of tort claims arising out of the alleged delay of his

mail, however this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Congress

passed the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), which waived the sovereign immunity of

the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees. FDIC v. Meyer, 510

U.S. at 475-76;Anderson v. United States Postal Serv., 761 F.2d at 528. However, the

FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to tort claims arising out of the

loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of mail. Anderson, 761 F.2d at 528. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal with prejudice for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction based upon the immunity of the United States Post Office. 

Although the Court generally grants leave to amend after an initial screening of a

complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court concludes that here, leave would serve no

purpose as a viable civil rights claim or tort claim cannot be stated against the United

States Post Office as a Defendant. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction over his

tort claims against the United States Post Office. 

\\\

\\\

Case 5:05-cv-04014-JF Document 10 Filed 09/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett014dis 4

Based upon this dismissal, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

motions for appointment of counsel (docket nos. 2, 3, 5, 7) are DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04014-JF Document 10 Filed 09/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Bennett014dis 5

This is to certify that a copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Mario Bennett

V-23447

Pelican Bay State Prison

P.O. Box 7500

B-1-124

Crescent City, CA 95531

Case 5:05-cv-04014-JF Document 10 Filed 09/20/06 Page 5 of 5