IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AGNES ADU,

 Plaintiff,

v.

POST OFFICE,

 Defendant.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 11-2635 (JBS/JS)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SIMANDLE, District Judge:

 This matter is before the Court on the unopposed motion of

Defendant Post Office (hereafter, “United States Postal Service” 1

or “USPS”) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

[Docket Item 4.] The Court finds as follows:

1. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initially filed this

action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special

Civil Part on April 28, 2011. [Docket Item 1, Ex. A.] On May 9,

2011, the action was thereafter removed to this Court by

Defendant USPS. [Docket Item 1.] 

2. On May 17, 2011, Defendant filed its motion to dismiss

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. [Docket Item 4.] Plaintiff has not responded in

 Plaintiff’s Complaint named, as the sole defendant in this 1

action, “Post Office.” The Court construes Plaintiff’s Complaint

to name the United States Postal Service, an agency of the United

States federal government. See Dilg v. U.S. Postal Serv., 635 F.

Supp. 406, 407 (D.N.J. 1986) (“the Postal Service is clearly a

‘federal agency’ within the broad definition of that term in [28

U.S.C.] § 2671").

Case 1:11-cv-02635-JBS -JS Document 6 Filed 11/01/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 46
opposition to Defendants’ motion.

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks damages in the amount of

$1,000 for Defendant’s loss of a phone that Plaintiff apparently

sent through the mail. Not. of Removal Ex. A. However, the

papers filed by Defendant in this matter lead the Court to

suspect that the Court does not have access to the full pleadings

submitted by Plaintiff in this matter.

4. In Defendant’s notice of removal, Defendant recounts

Plaintiff’s allegations as follows:

This is a civil action seeking damages for

injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained as

the direct and proximate result of the Postal

Service’s negligent processing and/or handling

of an Express Mail package that Plaintiff

mailed to a residential address in the Bronx,

New York. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges

that when she presented her package for

mailing, the postal clerk asked her if she

wanted to purchase insurance and when she

declined because she had previously mailed a

package to the same address without a problem,

he stated that her package would get lost.

Not. of Removal ¶ 2. However, the Court notes that the attached

summons and Complaint contain no such detailed allegations. The

total allegations contained in the documents attached to

Defendant’s Notice of Removal state that Plaintiff seeks $1,000

(Not. of Removal Ex. A Form B) and that in the section marked

“state the reasons you, the Plaintiff(s), are suing the

Defendant(s): attach additional sheets if necessary” Plaintiff

states “The Phone got Lost.” (Not. of Removal Ex. A Form A.) 

2

Case 1:11-cv-02635-JBS -JS Document 6 Filed 11/01/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 47
The Court, therefore, concludes that Defendant has received

additional pleadings from Plaintiff that were not included in the

attached Exhibit A.

5. The Court is therefore unable to decide Defendant’s

motion, as Defendant relies on alleged facts not present in the

pleadings submitted to the Court. For example, in Defendant’s

motion to dismiss, Defendant argues, in part, that Plaintiff

failed to exhaust available administrative remedies by failing to

comply with the Domestic Mail Manual’s provisions regarding

Express Mail. However, the pleadings submitted to the Court

contain no mention of Express Mail.

6. It is the responsibility of the removing party -- here,

the Post Office -- to attach to its notice of removal “a copy of

all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant,”

28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Apparently, the Post Office has not done so

herein.

7. Consequently, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion

without prejudice to refiling an amended motion or resubmitting

the same motion after submitting to the Court any omitted

portions of Plaintiff’s pleadings. The accompanying Order will

be entered.

November 1, 2011 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

Date JEROME B. SIMANDLE

United States District Judge

3

Case 1:11-cv-02635-JBS -JS Document 6 Filed 11/01/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 48