Eiland v. United States Postal Serv.
| Decision Date | 31 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:22-cv-00538-PLC |
| Parties | TYRRELL JONES EILAND, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter comes before the Court on its own motion. On July 19,2022, the Court ordered plaintiff Tyrrell Jones Eiland to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He was given thirty days in which to respond. More than thirty days have elapsed, and plaintiff has not submitted a show cause response. Therefore for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who brought a civil action against the United States Postal Service (USPS) and HPH Milano, LLC on May 16, 2022. (Docket No. 1 at 2). He asserted that the Court had federal question jurisdiction based on the following six federal statutes:
(1) 18 U.S.C. § 1694;[1](2) 18U.S.C. § 1700;[2] (3) 18U.S.C. § 1701;[3] (4) 18 U.S.C. § 1702;[4] (5) 18 U.S.C. § 1703;[5] and (6) 18 U.S.C. § 1708.[6] (Docket No. 1 at 3).
In the “Statement of Claim,” plaintiff asserted that between March 2021 and August 2021, HPH Milano “allowed [his] mail to be left unsecured, stolen, [and] destroyed,” and that they “contributed to [his] identity fraud by not properly providing a secured mailbox at [the] apartment building they owned.” (Docket No. 1 at 4). More particularly, he alleged that HPH Milano gave him “a mailbox with no secure latch and disregarded the USPS Inspector's order to replace [the] entire mailbox system for [the] building or face fines and [a] mail hold.” Plaintiff argued that due to this unsecured mailbox, “[c]redit cards, business checks, contracts and other sensitive materials were stolen and damage was caused.”
To mitigate the loss, plaintiff “purchased a [P.O.] box.” Nevertheless, he broadly claimed that “mail from [the] USPS...was delayed, stolen, returned to senderf,] or unaccounted.” He also contended that a “USPS postal supervisor threatened [him] with violence,” and that he was threatened with his “mail being destroyed,” which he insists “did occur.”
Attached to the complaint were three exhibits. (Docket No. 1-1). First, there was a July 28, 2021 letter from the USPS to plaintiff, advising him that his administrative tort claim had been assigned to an examiner. (Docket No. 1-1 at 5). Second, there was an October 1, 2021 letter from the USPS to plaintiff reminding him that his post office box renewal fee was due. (Docket No. 11 at 4). Third, there was a February 23, 2022 letter from the USPS to plaintiff denying his administrative tort claim. (Docket No. 1-1 at 2). The Court treated these exhibits as part of the pleadings.[7]
Based on these assertions, plaintiff sought “$500,000 in actual and punitive money damages from USPS and HPH Milano[,] LLC.” (Docket No. 1 at 5).
Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 2). The Court granted the motion on July 19,2022. (Docket No. 4). Because plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court also reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Based on that review the Court determined that plaintiff had not adequately alleged the existence of federal question jurisdiction. In particular, the Court noted that plaintiffs asserted bases for jurisdiction were all criminal statutes, which did not provide for a private right of action. The Court also explained that any potential claim against the USPS pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act appeared to fit within an exception to the act's waiver of sovereign immunity.
The Court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing and within thirty days as to why his case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He was advised that his failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. More than thirty days have elapsed, and plaintiff has not responded.
Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who brings this civil action against the USPS and HPH Milano, accusing them of allowing his mail to be delayed, lost, stolen, or destroyed. On July 19, 2022, he was ordered to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not responded. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's power to decide a certain class of cases. LeMay v. U.S. Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2006). “Federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto.” Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). See also Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251,256 (2013) (). The presence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold requirement that must be assured in every federal case. Kronholm v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 915 F.2d 1171, 1174 (8th Cir. 1990). See also Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987) (). As such, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, by any party or the court. Gray v. City of Valley Park, Mo., 567 F.3d 976, 982 (8th Cir. 2009).
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over both federal question cases and diversity of citizenship cases. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian Reservation, 495 F.3d 1017,1020 (8th Cir. 2007) (); McLaurin v. Prater, 30 F.3d 982, 984-85 (8th Cir. 1994) (). The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction belongs to the plaintiff. V S Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 235 F.3d 1109,1112 (8th Cir. 2000).
In this case, plaintiff has asserted that the Court has federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction gives district courts “original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Griffioen v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 785 F.3d 1182,1188 (8th Cir. 2015). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether a claim arises under federal law is determined by reference to the “well-pleaded complaint.” Great Lakes Gas Transmission Ltd. P'ship v. Essar Steel Minn. LLC, 843 F.3d 325, 329 (8th Cir. 2016). The well-pleaded complaint rule provides that jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint. Markham v. Wertin, 861 F.3d 748, 754 (8th Cir. 2017). See also Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134, 1139 (8th Cir. 2014) ().
Plaintiffs complaint must establish “either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williams v. Ragnone, 147 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1998). See also Northwest South Dakota Production Credit Ass 'n v. Smith, 784 F.2d 323, 325 (8th Cir. 1986) (). “If the asserted basis of federal jurisdiction is patently meritless, then dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is appropriate.” Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 407 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2005).
As noted above - and in the Court's prior order - plaintiff asserts that this Court has federal question jurisdiction on the basis of six federal statutes: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 1694; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 1700; (3) 18 U.S.C. § 1701; (4) 18 U.S.C. § 1702; (5) 18 U.S.C. § 1703; and (6) 18 U.S.C. § 1708. All of these statutes are federal criminal statutes, and can only provide a jurisdictional basis if they provide a private right of action.
“[T]he fact that a statute has been violated and some person harmed does not automatically give rise to a private cause of action in favor of that person.” Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 440 U.S. 560,568 (1979). Rather, like substantive federal law itself, a private right of action to enforce a federal law must be created by Congress. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001). To that end, a criminal statute may provide an implied right of action if Congress intended to do so in enacting the statute. Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, of Poplar Bluff, 167 F.3d 402, 407 (8th Cir. 1999). In order to determine whether a private right of action exists, a court must consider four factors:
(1) whether the plaintiff is a member of the class for whose benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether Congress intended, explicitly or implicitly, to create such a remedy; (3) whether a private remedy is consistent with the underlying...
To continue reading
Request your trial