Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13329/USCOURTS-ca11-14-13329-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John and or Jane Doe
Appellee
Jerry Guest
Appellant
United States Postal Service
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13329

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00283-CAR-CHW

JERRY GUEST, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 

JOHN AND OR JANE DOE, 

Postmaster Unadilla, GA, 

 Defendants-Appellees,

JOHN AND OR JANE DOES,

Two unidentified postal employees,

 Defendants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(September 3, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 14-13329 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 1 of 4
2

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Jerry Guest, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his complaint for failure to state claim. Guest argues (1) the 

Postmaster of Unadilla, Georgia denied his constitutional right of access to the 

courts; (2) the Postmaster violated his due process rights by falsely accusing him of 

making threats, which caused his three-day confinement in involuntary 

segregation; and (3) his state law claims are not barred by the federal government’s

sovereign immunity. As Guest is familiar with the facts of his case, we weave 

them into the discussion only as necessary. Upon review, we affirm.1

I. DISCUSSION

A. Access to Courts

The district court did not err in concluding the complaint failed to state a 

violation of Guest’s constitutional right of access to the courts. A litigant asserting 

a denial-of-access-to-courts claim must prove he has a “colorable underlying claim 

for which he seeks relief.” Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1226 (11th Cir. 

2006). The complaint must identify a nonfrivolous, arguable underlying claim 

“described well enough . . . to show that the arguable nature of the underlying 

 1 We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint for failure to 

state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), using the same standards that govern Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissals. Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1278–79 

(11th Cir. 2001). We accept the allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008).

USCA11 Case: 14-13329 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 2 of 4
3

claim is more than hope.” Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney’s Office for Escambia 

Cty., 592 F.3d 1237, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Guest has not sufficiently alleged a colorable, nonfrivolous underlying 

claim. See Barbour, 471 F.3d at 1226. The complaint merely says Guest mailed a 

motion for reconsideration to the Georgia Court of Appeals and that, had the 

motion been timely, it would have been granted. The complaint’s blanket 

assertions do not show Guest’s underlying claim was “more than hope.” See 

Cunningham, 592 F.3d at 1271 (quotation omitted).

B. Due Process

The district court did not err in concluding the complaint failed to state a 

violation of due process arising from Guest’s confinement in involuntary 

segregation. Guest’s due process theory requires alleging not only the deprivation 

of a liberty interest, but also that such deprivation “impose[d] atypical and 

significant hardship” relative “to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” See Sandin 

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483–44 (1995). Guest’s complaint, however, alleges 

only that he was placed in involuntary segregation as a result of the alleged 

deprivation. Guest’s complaint fails to state a claim because he has not alleged 

specific facts showing involuntary segregation at his facility is an “atypical and 

significant hardship” in relation to ordinary prison life. Id. at 484.

C. Federal Tort Claims Act

USCA11 Case: 14-13329 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 3 of 4
4

The district court did not err in dismissing Guest’s state law claims brought 

pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346. The federal 

government’s waiver of sovereign immunity though the FTCA is subject to certain 

statutory exceptions, Zelaya v. United States, 781 F.3d 1315, 1322 (11th Cir. 

2015), one of which is the exception from “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, 

miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter,” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2680(b). Since Guest’s FTCA claims are premised on the Postmaster’s 

purported miscarriage of mail, they are barred by the federal government’s 

sovereign immunity.

II. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of 

Guest’s complaint.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 14-13329 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 4 of 4