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 ORDER- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERESA JOHNSON,

Defendant.

 NO. C06-146JLR

 ORDER

 

This matter comes before the court on the Government’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 3).

Plaintiff Michael Carlson originally sued Teresa Johnson, his supervisor at a Seattle

area branch of the United States Postal Service, in King County District Court. Mr. Carlson’s

claim consists of a single sentence: “Ms. Johnson has my person[a]l items and will not return

them.” He provides no other details. Ms. Johnson claims that when another Postal Service

employee asked her to mediate a dispute over a borrowed video game console belonging to

Mr. Carlson, she declined to do so, but retained the console until the employee could pick it

up at the end of his shift. She also issued Mr. Carlson a disciplinary notice for an at-work

altercation with the other employee over the console. 

The Government properly removed the action to this court. It then substituted the

United States as a Defendant in place of Ms. Johnson, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). It

now moves to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Case 2:06-cv-00146-JLR Document 7 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

The United States Postal Service is not technically a United States agency. See 39 U.S.C.

§ 201. It is treated like an agency, however, for purposes of most tort claims. 39 U.S.C. § 409(c).

ORDER- 2

Mr. Carlson has not opposed the Government’s motion.

Based on the record before it, the court concludes that this matter is either a tort claim

for conversion of Mr. Carlson’s property or trespass to his chattels, or is a dispute over the

propriety of Ms. Johnson’s disciplinary action against Mr. Carlson. In either case, this court

lacks jurisdiction. 

To the extent Mr. Carlson’s claim sounds in tort, he has not complied with the pre-suit

notification requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. 

Section 2675(a) of the FTCA prohibits a plaintiff from bringing suit until he has “presented

the claim to the appropriate Federal agency” and the agency1

 either denies the claim or allows

six months to pass without action. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any action

that does not comply with § 2675(a), as the statute’s requirements are conditions precedent to

the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Meridian Int’l Logistics, Inc. v. United

States, 939 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1991). Mr. Carlson has not complied with § 2675(a), and

thus the court must dismiss his action to the extent it sounds in tort.

The court also lacks jurisdiction to the extent Mr. Carlson’s action is an objection to

Ms. Johnson’s disciplinary action. Under the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”), a covered

employee’s remedy for employment grievances is limited to administrative procedures

provided under the CSRA and the employee’s collective bargaining agreement. Whitman v.

Dep’t of Transportation, 382 F.3d 938, 942 (9th Cir. 2004). The record reveals that Mr.

Carlson is a covered employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement. This court

therefore cannot hear his grievance.

Case 2:06-cv-00146-JLR Document 7 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 3
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 ORDER- 3

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss

(Dkt. # 3). The clerk shall enter judgment for the Government in accordance with this order.

Dated this 12th day of April, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00146-JLR Document 7 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3