Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01198/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry A. Ambler
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1The Attorney General has certified that Perez was acting

within the scope of his employment. Accordingly, removal and

substitution are proper.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LARRY A. AMBLER,

NO. CIV. S 05-1198 MCE PAN

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

 Plaintiff, Larry A. Ambler, is seeking $1,646.56 in damages

arising from the miscarriage of his mail by the United States

Postal Service (“USPS”). Plaintiff originally filed his claim in

the Superior Court of California, Small Claims Division, against

postal employee Glen Perez (“Perez”). The Government has removed

to this Court and is requesting that it be substituted as

defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2679(d)(2).1 The

Government has also moved to have this action dismissed pursuant

Case 2:05-cv-01198-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 08/04/05 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

2Because oral argument would not be of material assistance,

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiff failed to

file any opposition to the Government’s motion. Having

considered the papers submitted and the entire record herein, the

Court grants the Government's motion.2

BACKGROUND

On November 6, 1989, an application for a Post Office Box or

Caller Service was filed by Mr. Robert Julius Chatman, Pastor,

Faith Temple Community Church, (“Chatman”) to rent a Post Office

Box at the USPS Broadway Station in Sacramento, California. At

all times relevant, Plaintiff was not listed as an authorized

user on Chatman’s Post Office Box. 

On April 3, 2005, the Broadway Station post office received

a letter for Plaintiff. The letter listed Plaintiff as the

addressee, but listed Chatman’s Post Office Box as the delivery

address. Since Plaintiff was not an authorized user of the Post

Office Box, a USPS employee forwarded the letter to its central

forwarding service. Once there, it was determined that Plaintiff

had no forwarding order on file and the letter was promptly

returned to the Broadway Station post office.

During the interim, Plaintiff discussed the matter with

Perez wherein Perez told Plaintiff that he was not an authorized

user on the Post Office Box and would need to provide

identification to obtain his mail. On April 7, 2005, Plaintiff

and Chatman visited the Broadway Station post office and obtained

Case 2:05-cv-01198-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 08/04/05 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

3

the letter. On or about May 6, 2005, Plaintiff initiated this

action seeking damages for late fees, rent and undue mental

stress. 

STANDARD

In moving to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(1), the challenging party may either make

a “facial attack” on the allegations of jurisdiction contained in

the complaint or can instead take issue with subject matter

jurisdiction on a factual basis (“factual attack”). Thornhill

Publishing Co. v. General Tel. & Elect. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733

(9th Cir. 1979); Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549

F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). If the motion constitutes a facial

attack, the Court must consider the factual allegations of the

complaint to be true. Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404, 412

(5th Cir. 1981); Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. If the motion

constitutes a factual attack, however, “no presumptive

truthfulness attaches to plaintiff’s allegations, and the

existence of disputed material facts will not preclude the trial

court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional

claims.” Thornhill, 594 F.2d at 733 (quoting Mortensen, 549 F.2d

at 891).

If the Court grants a motion to dismiss a complaint, it must

then decide whether to grant leave to amend. Generally, leave

to amend should be denied only if it is clear that the

deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. 

Broughton v. Cutter Labs., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980).

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01198-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 08/04/05 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

4

ANALYSIS

The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as

it consents to be sued, [citations omitted], and the terms of its

consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction

to entertain the suit. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584,

586 (1941).

With respect to claims of lost or mislaid mail, not only has

the Government withheld its consent to be sued, it has expressly

barred such suits. Specifically, the postal miscarriage

provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) bars “[a]ny

claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent

transmission of letters or postal matter.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). 

Plaintiff’s exclusive claim in this action is that the Broadway

Station post office, and Perez in particular, mislaid his mail

causing him injury. Because such claims are expressly barred,

Plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01198-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 08/04/05 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

5

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, the Government’s Motion to

Dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED. 

Because amendment would not cure the defect in jurisdiction,

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01198-MCE -PAN Document 8 Filed 08/04/05 Page 5 of 5