Vazquez v. United States Postal Service
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER CONSTRUING the Postal Services 4 MOTION for Summary Judgment as a motion to dismiss, and GRANTING that motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of the Defendant stating that Plaintiff is entitled to no relief. The clerk shall treat this civil action as TERMINATED. All further settings in this action are hereby VACATED. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 9/15/14. cc: Zuriel Vazquez(mc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ZURIEL VAZQUEZ,
)
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:14 CV 153 PPS
OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Zuriel Vazquez has sued the United States Postal Service because they
lost his package. The Postal Service argues they are immune from his suit [DE 4]. I agree with
the Postal Service, so Vasquez’s case is DISMISSED.
Background
Zuriel Vasquez filed a pro se complaint in the Small Claims Division of the Lake County
Superior Court alleging the Postal Service lost his package and owed him $716.50 [DE 31-1 at
6]. The complaint states:
“The defendant lost my package and [it] was not delivered to the person I [sent] it [to].
The defendant would not offer to pay for it. I open many cases with them in order to find
my package and they would close it without a solution to the problem. Without notifying
me, they would not put the information I [gave] them in their system. They now blame
me and say it is too late to do something.”
Id. The Postal Service removed the case to this District Court [DE 2]. On June 13, 2014, the
Postal Service filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Vasquez’s claim is barred by
the doctrine of sovereign immunity [DE 4]. Since Vasquez is a pro se plaintiff, the Postal
Service provided Vasquez with notice of the summary judgment motion and warned him about
the consequences of failing to respond [DE 6; DE 7]. Vasquez has not responded.
Discussion
The Postal Service has included affidavits and evidence regarding Vasquez’s conduct
with their motion for summary judgment, but I don’t think it is necessary for me to consider
anything beyond the complaint in this case. Sovereign immunity concerns a plaintiff’s statutory
right to relief. See United States v. County of Cook, 167 F.3d 381, 389 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[w]hat
sovereign immunity means is that relief against the United States depends on a statute”); see also
Williams v. Fleming, 597 F.3d 820, 824 (7th Cir. 2010); Collins v. United States, 564 F.3d 833,
837-838 (7th Cir. 2009). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, when the government claims
sovereign immunity, my job is to compare the allegations in the complaint to the list of
exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Williams, 597 F.3d at 820 (“[L]ower courts should
scrutinize the cause of action, and if a § 2680 exception applies, then courts should relieve the
United States from the burden of defending against the lawsuit.”). Since there is no need to go
beyond the complaint, the Postal Service’s motion is better considered as a motion challenging
Vasquez’s ability to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. So I am going to construe the
motion as a motion to dismiss. See Grzelak v. Calumet Pub. Co., 543 F.2d 579, 583 (7th Cir.
1975).
“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies
from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). The Federal Tort Claims Act contains a
limited waiver of sovereign immunity. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2401, 2671-80. Section
1346(b)(1) permits recovery of money damages against the United States in the following
2
circumstances:
[F]or injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent
or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within
the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States,
if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the
place where the act or omission occurred.
However, section 2680 sets forth a number of exceptions to the FTCA’s limited waiver, one of
which is the postal-matter exception. Section 2680(b) provides that the United States does not
waive immunity for “any claims arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of
letters or postal matter” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). As the Supreme Court explained, the exception
preserves sovereign immunity for claims of “injuries arising, directly or consequentially, because
mail either fails to arrive at all or arrives late, in damaged condition, or at the wrong address.”
Dolan v. U.S.P.S., 546 U.S. 481, 489 (2006). The exception applies squarely in this case as
Vasquez claims he is entitled to damages because the Postal Service failed to deliver his
package.
Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the Postal Service’s motion [DE 4] as a motion to
dismiss, and GRANTS that motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall
ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of the Defendant stating that Plaintiff is entitled to no
relief. The clerk shall treat this civil action as TERMINATED. All further settings in this action
are hereby VACATED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 15, 2014
s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?