Lequieu v. US Post Office - Bonners Ferry
2:16-cv-00137
D. IdahoAug 25, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Sandra Lequieu filed a negligence/premises tort suit alleging she slipped on black ice outside the Bonners Ferry Post Office on January 11, 2013, caused by broken or leaking pipes and poor maintenance.
- She alleges multiple injuries and seeks monetary damages from the United States (the Post Office) and individual employees.
- Lequieu applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); her affidavit showed disability income, no bank funds, minimal assets, and some debt.
- The Court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether dismissal was required.
- The Court considered sovereign immunity and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) as a potential waiver permitting suit against the United States for negligent acts of employees.
- The Court granted IFP status, found the complaint non-frivolous and stating a potentially valid FTCA claim, and authorized service to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lequieu qualifies for IFP | Lequieu cannot prepay filing fee due to poverty and disability | (implicit) Plaintiff must show inability to pay under §1915 | Granted IFP based on affidavit showing poverty and lack of assets |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars the suit | The FTCA waives immunity for negligent acts by government employees leading to personal injury | United States is ordinarily immune absent a statutory waiver | Court found FTCA may waive immunity here and allowed the FTCA tort claim to proceed |
| Whether the complaint states a claim on which relief can be granted | Lequieu alleges inadequate maintenance causing hazardous ice and resulting injuries | (implicit defense) Complaint must meet state-law duty and FTCA standards to impose liability | Complaint, liberally construed, alleges facts sufficient to state a negligence/premises claim under Idaho law; claim survives initial §1915 review |
| Whether plaintiff may proceed with service and litigation pro se | Lequieu seeks permission to proceed and serve defendants | (court notes) pro se litigants are bound by same procedural rules | Court permitted service and instructed plaintiff on procedural obligations and resources |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (standard for sufficiency of poverty affidavit for IFP)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981) (IFP affidavit must state facts of poverty with particularity)
- Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed)
- Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend where complaint can be saved)
- Harris v. Amgen, Inc., 573 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless amendment cannot cure defects)
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity principle)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (waivers of sovereign immunity construed narrowly)
- Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (1962) (FTCA liability based on employee conduct that would impose liability on private persons)
- Epling v. United States, 453 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1971) (application of state law negligence standards under FTCA)
- Kirk v. United States, 270 F.2d 110 (9th Cir. 1959) (United States may be negligent only if an actionable tort duty exists under controlling state law)