Tucker v. United States Postal Service
Filing
36
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 29 Submission of New Emergency Filing. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (LH)
Case 3:20-cv-05537-RAJ Document 36 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 3
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
CAROL LORRAINE TUCKER,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
v.
Case No. 3:20-cv-05537-RAJ
ORDER
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant.
13
14
15
Following Judge Ronald B. Leighton’s retirement, this matter was reassigned to
16
this Court. Dkt. # 27. Months ago, while this matter was before Judge Leighton,
17
Plaintiff Carol Lorraine Tucker submitted an “Emergency Filing,” Dkt. # 9, which the
18
Government and Judge Leighton construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order
19
(“TRO”), Dkt. ## 18, 21. Ms. Tucker sought an injunction requiring the Ocean Shores
20
United States Postal Service to do the following:
21
22
23
24
25
1. Immediately cease and desist from refusing to deliver mail, or returning mail as
Undeliverable, to [her] post office box whether addressed to [her] street address or
post office box;
2. That all parcels, whether addressed to [her] street address or post office box be
delivered to a parcel locker per 2019 agreement;
26
3. That parcels too large for a parcel locker, whether addressed to [her] street
address or post office box be delivered to [her] front door;
27
4. That Ocean Shores Post Office immediately cease and desist from further acts
28
ORDER – 1
Case 3:20-cv-05537-RAJ Document 36 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
of retaliation against [her];
5. That since USPS Seattle Regional Office repeatedly refuses to discipline or
remove the postmaster, carrier, and box clerks who have perpetrated said acts of
retaliation against [her], that this esteemed Court order the United States Postal
Inspection Service immediately investigate and monitor said employees[.]
Dkt. # 9 at 2.
6
After reviewing the materials—including Ms. Tucker’s supplements to her
7
motion—Judge Leighton denied the motion for a TRO, holding that Ms. Tucker failed to
8
meet any of the four factors set forth in Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
9
20 (2008). Dkt. # 21. Ms. Tucker then filed a motion for reconsideration, Dkt. # 23,
10
11
which Judge Leighton denied for being untimely and without merit, Dkt. # 26.
Two days after reassignment to this Court, Ms. Tucker filed a “Submission of
12
New Emergency Filing.” Dkt. # 29. The submission cites no case law or any other
13
authority. Id. Instead, Ms. Tucker bases the submission on “hopes that Judge Jones will
14
give it the attention and justice it and [she] deserve[s], unlike Judge Leighton.” Id. The
15
Government, yet again, construed the “request” for an “emergency order” as a motion for
16
a TRO and responded. Dkt. ## 31, 32. In her reply, Ms. Tucker did not object to that
17
interpretation. Dkt. # 33.
18
Construing the submission as a motion for a TRO, the Court finds that Ms. Tucker
19
is not entitled to emergency relief. Ms. Tucker already requested a TRO. Dkt. # 9. She
20
supplemented her request five times. Dkt. ## 10-13, 15. Her request was denied for
21
failing to meet any of the four TRO factors: likelihood of success on the merits,
22
likelihood of suffering irreparable harm, balance of the equities, or public interest. Dkt.
23
# 21. She moved for reconsideration and filed a supplement to boot. Dkt. ## 23, 24.
24
Reconsideration was denied. Dkt. # 26. As the Government observes, the Court’s denial
25
of the previous motion for a TRO and motion for reconsideration are the law of the case.
26
Dkt. # 32 at 3-4. As such, they preclude any relief here.
27
28
Under the “law of the case” doctrine, “a court is generally precluded from
ORDER – 2
Case 3:20-cv-05537-RAJ Document 36 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 3
1
reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court
2
in the identical case.” Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied
3
508 U.S. 951 (1993). “A court may have discretion to depart from the law of the case
4
where: 1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; 2) an intervening change in the law has
5
occurred; 3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; 4) other changed
6
circumstances exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result.” United States v.
7
Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). None of those five circumstances are
8
present here.
9
Of course, the relief that Ms. Tucker seeks here varies from the relief she sought in
10
her initial motion for a TRO—but only slightly. Compare Dkt. # 29 at 2 with Dkt. # 9 at
11
2. As Judge Leighton previously observed, in her previous motion for a TRO, Ms.
12
Tucker at bottom “claim[ed that] the Ocean Shores Post Office [was] not handling her
13
mail and packages in the manner she desire[d].” Dkt. # 21 at 1. The same is true here.
14
Like her previous request for injunctive relief, Ms. Tucker’s instant request fails to show
15
any of the four TRO factors: likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of suffering
16
irreparable harm, balance of the equities, or public interest. Thus, to the extent that this
17
request for injunctive relief varies from the previous one, it is denied.
18
19
For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Ms. Tucker’s Submission of New
Emergency Filing. Dkt. # 29.
20
21
DATED this 8th day of September, 2020.
A
22
23
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 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?