Ly v. United States Postal Service, 775 F. Supp. 2d 9

Ly, acting pro se, sues USPS for breach of contract claiming it failed to indemnify contents of a mailed package.
Package sent January 26, 2009 from Gaithersburg, MD to Pakistan; ten Blackberry Storms valued at $2,649.90.
Ly paid $74.75 postage and $3.45 for insurance (up to $1,000).
Package arrived in Pakistan January 30, 2009; recipient reported missing contents; Pakistani authorities reported different contents.
Ly allegedly initiated inquiries with USPS and filed a PS Form 1000, but did not pursue the IMM-mandated claims process.
USPS moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Ly opposed but admitted not exhausting per IMM procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ly exhausted administrative remedies under IMM before suit	Ly initiated inquiries but did not complete IMM claims process	Ly failed to follow IMM claim-and-appeal procedures	Exhaustion required; Ly did not exhaust (dismissal granted)

Hall v. Sebelius, 689 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2009) (treatment of exhaustion as non-jurisdictional; motion treated as 12(b)(6))
Marcelus v. Corr. Corp. of Am./Corr. Treatment Facility, 540 F. Supp. 2d 231 (D.D.C. 2008) (exhaustion considerations in prison context)
Artis v. Bernanke, 630 F.3d 1031 (D.C.Cir. 2011) (waiver of exhaustion only in exceptional circumstances)
Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 40 F.3d 426 (D.C.Cir. 1994) (exhaustion generally required to preserve agency authority)
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (exhaustion promotes administrative efficiency)
Ass'n of Flight Attendants—CWA, AFL-CIO v. Chao, 493 F.3d 155 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (exhaustion policy and its limits)
Simat v. USPS, 218 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (postal claimants must pursue administrative remedies before suit)
McBride v. USPS, not include due to WL citation (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (dismissing for failure to exhaust (not included in additional list))