Opinion
Case No. 99-75451.
October 27, 2000.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT U.S. POSTAL SERVICE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Cynthia D. English brought this suit in pro per on January 12, 2000. Although the allegations of her Complaint are not entirely clear, she apparently asserts that she won a sweepstakes conducted by Defendant International Processing Center — Worldwide Financial Group, but then never received her winnings. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant United States Postal Service lost certain papers she had mailed to the U.S. District Court in Detroit.
By motion filed on May 18, 2000, the Defendant U.S. Postal Service now moves for the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint on a variety of grounds, or, alternatively, for award of summary judgment in its favor. Plaintiff has not responded to this motion. Having reviewed Defendant's motion and supporting brief, as well as the record as a whole, the Court concludes that oral argument is not necessary, and that it is appropriate to decide Defendant's motion "on the briefs." See Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This Opinion and Order sets forth the Court's ruling.
As one of the grounds for its motion, Defendant argues that the United States of America, and not the Postal Service, is the proper defendant in any claim of negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (a). This deficiency in pleading, however, could easily be remedied through an appropriate substitution of parties, and such an amendment would relate back to the date upon which Plaintiff filed her original complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. Thus, the Court declines to decide Defendant's motion on this ground.
I. ANALYSIS
A. The Standards Governing Defendant's Motion
Defendant's motion rests principally upon Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under this Rule for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court is required to accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint. Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir. 1987); Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 858 (6th Cir. 1976). However, the Court "need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences." Morgan, 829 F.2d at 12. The Court will apply these standards in addressing Defendant's motion.
B. Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust Her Administrative Remedies Before Bringing This Suit
As the first ground for its motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not pursue the requisite administrative appeal before bringing the present action. While, as Defendant observes, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to specify the statutory basis for her claims, it appears that Plaintiff is charging the Defendant federal agency with negligent performance of its duties. So construed, Plaintiff's claim against the Postal Service arises under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), and is subject to that statute's requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies:
An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for 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, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a).
Although Plaintiff apparently did fill out and submit Postal Service Form 1510 to report her allegation of lost mail, this does not constitute an official administrative claim for relief. Rather, under the FTCA and its implementing regulations, Plaintiff was required to file "Standard Form 95, Claim for Damage or Injury," or an equivalent written statement, setting forth her allegation of lost mail and her "claim for money damages in a sum certain for injury to or loss of property." 28 C.F.R. § 14.2; see also 39 C.F.R. § 912.5 (setting forth the procedure for filing an administrative claim with the U.S. Postal Service). Defendant, however, has submitted the Declaration of Esteria H. Ware, a Paralegal Specialist for the Defendant agency, stating that there is no record that Plaintiff ever filed such an administrative appeal or claim for money damages. Consequently, Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant Postal Service must be dismissed as prematurely filed.
C. Plaintiff Cannot Pursue a Claim against the U.S. Postal Service for Lost Mail.
Alternatively, even assuming Plaintiff had exhausted her administrative remedies before bringing this suit, Defendant argues that complaints of lost mail are not actionable under the FTCA. The Court agrees. The relevant portion of the FTCA provides that this federal enactment "shall not apply to . . . [a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (b). This is precisely the basis for Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant agency in the present suit. It follows that she has failed to state a claim for relief against the U.S. Postal Service.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant U.S. Postal Service's Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.