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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

E-filed 2/8/2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD NORMAN STRILEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-07233-HRL 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 6

Pending before the court is defendant United States Postal Service’s (“USPS”) motion to 

dismiss pro se plaintiff Richard Striley’s (“Striley”) complaint. For the reasons described below, 

the court grants the motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Striley, who rents a Post Office Box at USPS Station 95102 in Castroville, California, filed 

a complaint against the USPS in Monterey County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1. His 

complaint alleges three claims against the USPS (or one or more of its employees): (1) the USPS 

unlawfully increased the rates for his post office box; (2) the USPS crammed his box full of 

advertising materials; and (3) the USPS failed to deliver an article of mail.1 Id. Striley 

characterizes his first claim as one for negligence, as the USPS allegedly negligently failed to 

provide public notice for its rate changes, and his second as an intentional tort claim. Id. 

Regarding the second claim, Striley states that he had asked the USPS to stop over-stuffing his 

box, and that he had written a notice to a “contact number” to request that advertising materials no 

longer be delivered, but that “the service had not stopped.” Id. For these grievances, Striley 

 

1

The complaint specifically cites 39 U.S.C. Section 101(a) and its requirement that the USPS 

provide “prompt, reliable, and efficient” service, as well as 39 U.S.C. Sections 3622(d) (modern 

rate regulation) and 403 (general duties of the USPS). Id.

Case 5:16-cv-07233-HRL Document 16 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

alleges $50,000.00 in damages. Id.

Defendant USPS removed to federal court and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss 

Striley’s complaint. Dkt. Nos. 1, 6. The motion to dismiss challenges the court’s subject matter 

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The USPS argues that it should be 

dismissed with prejudice as an improper defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) 

and that the United States should be substituted. Further, the USPS argues that the complaint 

should be dismissed as to the United States because (a) the plaintiff failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies, and (b) because jurisdiction over Striley’s claims—which the USPS 

characterizes as service-related complaints—lies properly (and exclusively) with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission. Dkt. No. 6. The USPS also asserts that Striley’s third claim, regarding 

mail delivery, should be dismissed because the United States has not waived sovereign immunity 

for such claims. Id.

In his opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Striley voluntarily dismisses his 

third claim regarding an alleged failure to deliver a package, “on the grounds that the mentioned 

parcel was delivered.” Dkt. No. 9. Striley admits that he “had not exhausted administrative 

remedies prior to filing suit” and expresses interest in correcting this defect. Id. Striley also 

argues that he had previously attempted to serve the Postal Regulatory Commission: after filing 

his opposition, Striley filed a “Certificate of Service / Proofs of Service[ ]” asserting that on 

November 1, 2016, he mailed a “Notice Before the Postal Rate Commission” containing the 

substance of his complaint to the “U.S. Regulatory Commission” at the address for the Postal 

Regulatory Commission. Dkt. No. 13. This certificate of service also asserts that in January 2017, 

he served his complaint and summons upon the United States Attorney General (he previously 

appears to have served the California Attorney General) and the US Attorney for the Northern 

District of California. Id. 

As Striley has voluntarily dismissed his claim regarding the defendant’s failure to deliver a 

certain package, the court considers defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to the other two 

claims. Both parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 5, 8.

DISCUSSION

Case 5:16-cv-07233-HRL Document 16 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss challenge a federal court’s jurisdiction over the subject 

matter of a plaintiff’s complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 12(b)(1) attacks can be facial or 

factual. Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). “In a facial attack, 

the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to 

invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the 

allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Id. In resolving a 

factual attack, the court may consider evidence beyond the complaint and need not accept the 

plaintiff’s allegations as true. Id. In 12(b)(1) challenges, the party asserting federal subject matter 

jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

When the court is evaluating a pro se complaint, it must construe the allegations liberally, 

and dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is only proper if it is “absolutely clear 

that no amendment can cure the defect.” Murphy v. United States Postal Serv., No. C 14-02156 

SI, 2014 WL 4437731 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014) (quoting Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 

(1980)).

As a sovereign, the United States (along with its agents) is immune from suit unless it has 

waived sovereign immunity. Thompson v. United States Postal Serv., No. C12-0301 PJH, 2012 

WL 3583134, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2012). A district court thus lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over an action against the United States or its agents unless there is an explicit waiver 

of sovereign immunity. Id. Such a waiver for certain tort claims against the United States is 

contained in the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Wilson v. Drake, 87 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th 

Cir. 1996); see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The United States is the only proper defendant in an action 

under the FTCA. Kennedy v. United States Postal Serv., 145 F.3d 1077, 1078 (9th Cir. 1998). 

This is the case “despite the statutory authority of any agency to sue or be sued in its own name.” 

Id.

Because the United States is the only proper defendant in an FTCA action, the court must 

dismiss the complaint as against the USPS with prejudice, and substitute the United States as the

defendant in its place. See Thompson v. United States Postal Service, 2012 WL 3583134, at *3.

Case 5:16-cv-07233-HRL Document 16 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The FTCA has a strict exhaustion requirement that must be satisfied before a plaintiff can 

maintain an action in federal court. Freeman v. United States, No. 13-cv-02421-WHO, 2014 WL 

1117619, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014). To exhaust administrative remedies, a would-be 

plaintiff must file a claim with the appropriate agency that includes “(1) a written statement 

sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation, and (2) a sum 

certain damages claim.” Id. (quoting Cadwalder v. United States, 45 F.3d 297, 301 (9th Cir. 

1995)); 28 U.S.C. 2675(a). Administrative remedies are exhausted when the agency either denies 

the claim in writing or six months pass without a response. Id. Even if a plaintiff has filed a claim 

with the appropriate body, if the agency has not issued a written denial or six months have not 

passed, the court must dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Jerves v. United 

States, 966 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1992).

Striley admits that he has not exhausted administrative remedies, but the court, in fairness 

to a pro se litigant, will scrutinize his assertions regardless of this admission. Striley asserts that 

he attempted to file a notice of his complaint with the Postal Regulatory Commission in November 

of 2016. This is insufficient, however, as he does not allege that he has received a written 

response and six months have not passed. Striley’s complaint also alleges that, with respect to his 

claim related to overstuffing his post office box, he had written a notice to a contact number to 

request that advertising materials no longer be delivered to his box, but that the service had not 

stopped. Striley does not allege when this written notice occurred, whether he received a written 

denial, or whether six months have passed since. Additionally, the USPS has filed a declaration 

stating that its databases did not reveal the existence of an administrative tort claim filed by the 

plaintiff. Striley has not carried his burden of establishing that he has exhausted administrative 

remedies under the FTCA, and thus, if the plaintiff’s claims are, in fact, tort claims, the court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the complaint.

The federal defendant asserts, however, that Striley’s claims are more accurately 

characterized as service- and rate-related complaints. Under 39 U.S.C. Section 3662, the Postal 

Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over such complaints. See also LeMay v. 

United States Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799-801 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Congress removed the district 

Case 5:16-cv-07233-HRL Document 16 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

courts’ jurisdiction over claims regarding postal rates and services” by enacting 39 U.S.C. § 

3662); Murphy v. United States Postal Serv., No. C 14-02156 SI, 2014 WL 4437731 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 9, 2014) (dismissing a service-related claim with prejudice for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction).

The court is persuaded that Striley’s claims are rate- and service-related.2 Striley is, in 

effect, dissatisfied with the rates he is being charged for a postal service (his post office box), and 

he is dissatisfied with aspects of the service he is receiving (he alleges that the box is overstuffed). 

As such, Striley must file his complaint before the Postal Regulatory Commission. This court 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the complaint.

CONCLUSION

The court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss. Because amendment would not cure 

the jurisdictional defects present in the complaint, the court denies leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/8/2017

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

 

2

The sections Striley cites in his complaint—39 U.S.C. Sections 101(a), 403, and 3622(d)—all 

fall under Section 3662’s (and thus the Postal Regulatory Commission’s) ambit. Additionally, the 

court is persuaded that Striley’s claims are related to these sections and others cited in Section 

3662. See 39 U.S.C. § 101(a) (“It [the Postal Service] shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient 

services to patrons . . .); 39 U.S.C. § 101(d) (“Postal rates shall be established to apportion the 

costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.”); 39 U.S.C. § 

403 (“The Postal Service shall plan, develop, promote, and provide adequate and efficient postal 

services at fair and reasonable rates and fees.”). 

Case 5:16-cv-07233-HRL Document 16 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 5