Eiland v. United States Postal Serv.

Decision Date09 September 2022
Docket Number4:22-cv-00538-PLC
PartiesTYRRELL JONES EILAND, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN A. ROSS, DISTRCT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on a document submitted by plaintiff Tyrrell Jones Eiland that has been construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 31, 2022 order of dismissal. (Docket No. 7). For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be denied.

Background

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) 18 U.S.C. § 1700;[2] (3) 18 U.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. l.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 sender[,] 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 plaintiff's 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. When more than thirty days elapsed without a response, the Court dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on August 31, 2022. (Docket No. 6).

On September 7, 2022, plaintiff filed a document titled “Response to Judicial Memorandum and Order,” which has been construed as a motion to reconsider the Court's dismissal. (Docket No. 7).

The Motion

In his motion, plaintiff states that he “filed all preliminary complaints and communications directly with the” USPS, but that it “made little to no effort to remedy any issues and conflicts and directed plaintiff to escalate the matter to protect his rights under the law.” (Docket No. 7 at 1). He “filed form 50a as required before any legal action can be brought against the United States Government and its agencies or departments[,] and waited the allotted time before any legal action was initiated as set by federal statute." Plaintiff states that the USPS "directed [him] to seek legal remedy .. .in the jurisdiction [where] the legal office of the USPS is located." (Docket No. 7 at 2). He asserts that the USPS "is not immune to civil action and [that] this case should be allowed to proceed without prejudice" because "the USPS gave permission for plaintiff to seek legal remedy if the resolution presented was not satisfactory."

Plaintiff alleges that the “USPS continues to exhibit the same behavior as asserted in the initial claim and believes [it is] above the law.” According to plaintiff, the “USPS was responsible for all mail, letters, and packages under its care[,] especially in a secure post office box[,] and should be held liable for theft, loss, or damage that grossly affects the box holder.” He believes that if the “USPS is not held responsible, its agents will continue to show disregard for packages, letters, and materials sent through the postal system because there is no consequence to their bad behavior.”

Due to “the behavior of the USPS and HPH Milano, plaintiff claims to have suffered major financial losses, sanctions from the Internal Revenue Service, and U.S. Social Security Administration, and collateral damage to his life, credit, and savings.” As such, plaintiff contends that the Court was premature in pausing this claim or questioning the validity of plaintiffs permission to file this lawsuit against an independent agency of the U.S. government.” He states that [n]o one should be immune from civil litigation where there has been alleged misbehavior or misconduct,” and that “the USPS is not above the law.” Therefore, he concludes that this Court enjoys jurisdiction over this matter and should allow this claim to proceed.”

With regard to HPH Milano, plaintiff states that he “agrees with this Court that [the] federal statutes listed in the initial claim were criminal and not civil[,] and that [this] was an unintended error.” (Docket No. 7 at 3). He acknowledges that “HPH Milano is a private limited liability company and is not an agent of the USPS.” However, plaintiff suggests that “there are perimeters that hold HPH Milano accountable for mishandling or improper transmission of mail.”

By way of further explanation, plaintiff asserts that HPH Milano was “sanctioned by the postal inspector for not complying with the requirements to have secure mailboxes...and for not taking precaution[s] to ensure” that the mail of its residents was “free from tampering, damage, theft, or loss.” Because the postal inspector serves as part of the USPS, plaintiff concludes that “HPH Milano is not immune to civil action under federal law and should remain party to this federal claim.” In addition, he states that because the mail crosses state lines, and because HPH Milano is charged “with keeping mail secure and safe for its residents, they are subject to any and all federal statutes that govern proper mail handling[,] and are liable for theft, loss, and damage that arise from the negligence[,] whether willful or without malicious intent.”

Discussion

Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who filed a 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 within thirty days as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not respond in a timely manner, and the case was dismissed without prejudice on August 31, 2022. He has now filed a document construed as a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons discussed below the motion will be denied.

A. 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) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute). 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) (“The threshold requirement in every federal case is jurisdiction and we have admonished the district court to be attentive to a satisfaction of jurisdictional requirements in all cases). 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT