Barnes v. U.S. Postal Service
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 9/19/13 6 Motion to Dismiss is SUSTAINED and Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This is a final and appealable order.cc:counsel, Mary Barnes, Plaintiff Pro Se (DAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-00327-H
MARY BARNES
PLAINTIFF
v.
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case arises out of Plaintiff’s allegations that the United States Postal Service
misdelivered or failed to deliver certain issues of the Boston Globe newspaper. The named
Defendant, U.S. Postal Service, has moved to dismiss the complaint on various different
grounds. It is only necessary for the Court to consider one of those grounds in order to sustain
the motion.
The United States and its agencies are immune from suit, except to the extent they waive
sovereign immunity through a statute or other authority. Dolan v. United States Postal Service,
546 U.S. 481, 483-84 (2006). The Federal Court Claims Act (“FTCA”) waives the sovereign
immunity of the United States and the Postal Service in tort cases. However, the express terms
of the FTCA indicate that sovereign immunity is not waived for claims “. . . arising out of the
lost, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal material.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b);
Dolan, 546 U.S. at 485-86. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is based on the misdelivery or incomplete
delivery of issues of several newspapers. Because sovereign immunity is not waved for this type
of claim, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the complaint as a matter
of law.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff has sued an improper party, the proper party being the
United States of America rather than the Postal Service. The Court further notes that it may lack
jurisdiction because Plaintiff did not previously file a proper administrative claim which is a
precondition to bringing an actual lawsuit in federal court. The Court finds it unnecessary to
discuss these potentially meritorious defenses.
For all these reasons and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is SUSTAINED and
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a final and appealable order.
September 19, 2013
cc:
Mary Barnes, Plaintiff Pro Se
Counsel of Record
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?