UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

JAMES L. WHITE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 23-1239 

(D.C. No. 1:22-CV-01248-CNS-NRN) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MORITZ, ROSSMAN, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

James L. White appeals the dismissal of his pro se action against the United 

States Postal Service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to 

state a claim. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate the district 

court’s merits dismissal and remand with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 13, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 1
2 

I 

White asserted four claims alleging that Postal Service employees rendered 

poor customer service because of discrimination. Claim one alleged he is a Black 

man who went to the post office “to start a new 30 day hold” on his mail. R. at 31. 

He waited in line behind a white woman who had no problems with the white postal 

clerk, but when it was White’s turn, the postal clerk “gave [him] an unfavorable 

look[,] slammed the window[,] and came back with a” Black postal clerk “so it 

wouldn’t look like discrimination.” Id. The Black clerk falsely told him they could 

not hold his mail, making him feel disrespected and treated differently because of his 

race. Claims two, three, and four similarly attributed poor customer service to 

discrimination after White did not receive his mail and postal employees entered 

incorrect information into the system for holding his mail. All four claims asserted 

violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a to 2000a-6. 

The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss 

claims two, three, and four for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8.1

 The Postal Service then moved to dismiss claim one under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing 

that Title II prohibits discrimination in any “place of public accommodation” under 

the statutory definition, which does not include post offices. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b). 

The magistrate judge agreed and recommended dismissal. The district court adopted 

the recommendation and dismissed the case. White appealed. 

1

 White does not challenge this ruling. 

Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 2
3 

II 

Our analysis begins and ends with a jurisdictional defect. Although the district 

court did not address the jurisdictional question, we have an independent obligation 

to examine subject matter jurisdiction. Garling v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 849 F.3d 

1289, 1293 (10th Cir. 2017). Indeed, “on every appeal, the first and fundamental 

question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which 

the record comes.” In re Lang, 414 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir. 2005) (brackets, 

ellipsis, italics, and internal quotation marks omitted). We have jurisdiction to 

review the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See, e.g., Garling, 849 F.3d at 

1292 (exercising appellate jurisdiction over a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanding 

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The Postal Service contends, 

however, that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Postal Regulatory 

Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over mail service complaints like White’s. 

We review de novo whether subject matter jurisdiction was proper. 1mage Software, 

Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006). 

Under 39 U.S.C. § 3662(a), the Postal Regulatory Commission has exclusive 

jurisdiction over claims regarding postal rates and services. See LeMay v. United 

States Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799-800 (8th Cir. 2006); McDermott v. Potter, 

No. C09-0776RSL, 2009 WL 2971585, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2009), aff’d 

sub nom., McDermott v. Donahue, 408 F. App’x 51 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). 

The statute provides: “Any interested person . . . who believes the Postal Service is 

not operating in conformance with the requirements of the provisions of sections 

Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 3
4 

101(d), 401(2), 403(c), 404a, or 601, or this chapter . . . may lodge a complaint with 

the Postal Regulatory Commission . . . .” 39 U.S.C. § 3662(a). In turn, § 403(c) 

states that “[i]n providing services . . . , the Postal Service shall not . . . make any 

undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the mail, nor shall it grant any 

undue or unreasonable preferences to any such user.” Appellate review of decisions 

rendered by the Postal Regulatory Commission lies in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia. Id. § 3663. And district courts have 

jurisdiction to enforce, enjoin, and restrain the Postal Service from violating orders 

issued by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Id. § 3664. Under this statutory 

scheme, the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider service-related complaints 

against the Postal Service in the first instance. Rodriguez v. Hemit, No. C16-778 

RAJ, 2018 WL 3618260, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 30, 2018) (unpublished). 

The question, then, is whether White’s claim is properly characterized as a 

service-related complaint that falls within the scope of § 3662(a). In discerning the 

nature of his claim, we evaluate the substance of his allegations, not the labels 

attached to them. Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518, 520 (10th Cir. 1996). White 

alleged the Postal Service clerks refused to hold his mail. He asserted one clerk gave 

him a bad look, slammed the window closed, and returned with another clerk who 

falsely told him they could not hold his mail. He averred that the white customer in 

line before him faced no such difficulty, so he attributed the poor service to 

discrimination. However, White’s allegations in substance describe a customer 

service complaint for the refusal to hold his mail. Indeed, “[c]omplaints about how 

Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 4
5 

the Postal Service holds and delivers mail are inherently mail service claims [that fall 

under § 3662(a)].” Ssebanakitta v. Raymond, No. 20-1167-EFM-GEB, 2020 WL 

6798819, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 19, 2020), aff’d, 845 F. App’x 797, 798 (10th Cir. 

2021) (unpublished). Although White attributed the poor service he received to 

discriminatory animus—alleging the postal clerks slammed the window closed and 

refused to hold his mail—his allegations place his claim squarely within the 

parameters of § 403(c) and § 3662(a). See Murphy v. United States Postal Serv., 

No. C 14-02156 SI, 2014 WL 4437731, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014) 

(unpublished) (holding that, because § 3662 requires service-related claims to be 

filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission, the district court lacked jurisdiction 

over plaintiff’s claim “that defendant unlawfully discriminated among postal 

customers when a Postal Service clerk closed a service window and did not return 

while plaintiff attempted to obtain service”). The exclusive remedy for such claims 

lies with the Postal Regulatory Commission, and thus the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim. 

We reached a similar conclusion in Bovard v. United States Post Office, 

No. 94-6360, 1995 WL 74678 (10th Cir. Feb. 24, 1995) (unpublished). In Bovard, 

the plaintiffs alleged they were subjected to unreasonable discrimination in violation 

of § 403(c) because the postmaster changed the morning mail delivery service to 

afternoon delivery. Id. at *1. We held that, “[w]hile the plaintiffs have alleged 

unreasonable discrimination, . . . their claim [was] more appropriately characterized 

as a complaint regarding their mail service.” Id. We further noted that “[t]he 

Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 5
6 

language of § 3662 makes clear that a postal customer’s remedy for unsatisfactory 

service lies with the Postal [Regulatory] Commission, and that Congress did not 

intend to create a private right of action for service complaints.” Id. We therefore 

concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim. Id.

The Eighth Circuit followed a similar approach in LeMay. Citing our decision 

in Bovard, the Eighth Circuit held the Postal Regulatory Commission has exclusive 

jurisdiction over mail service complaints. See LeMay, 450 F.3d at 800. The court 

thus examined what was ostensibly a contract claim and determined the allegations 

that “the Postal Service had a contractual obligation to provide priority services” 

“echo[ed] contract, but the issues [were] classic questions of postal rates and 

services.” Id. at 800-01 (internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, the court 

concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim, which 

should have been brought before the Postal Regulatory Commission. Id. at 801; 

accord Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp., 549 F. App’x 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(unpublished) (affirming dismissal of § 404a claim because § 3662(a) conferred 

exclusive jurisdiction over such claims to the Postal Regulatory Commission, with 

appellate review in the D.C. Circuit under § 3663). 

These cases confirm our conclusion: White’s allegations present a mail 

service complaint that falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Postal Regulatory 

Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 6
7 

Commission. Therefore, the action should have been dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.2

III 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is vacated, and this case is 

remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of 

jurisdiction. White’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and 

fees is granted. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

2

 We note, however, that 39 U.S.C. § 3662(a) would have no relevance to a 

non-service related discrimination claim. Moreover, dismissal of White’s claim in 

this case does not necessarily preclude him from voicing his concerns about alleged 

discrimination in an appropriate forum. For example, the magistrate judge 

observed—and the district court reiterated—that in addition to submitting a 

complaint to the Postal Regulatory Commission, White could contact “the Postal 

Service’s district consumer affairs office[,] . . . the headquarters Consumer Advocate 

office[,] [or] [the] Office of the Inspector General . . . .” R. at 82. 

Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 7