Murray McIver v. USPS General Accounting
1:24-cv-09796
S.D.N.Y.Apr 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Tamicko D. Murray McIver, filed a pro se action against the United States Postal Service (USPS) General Accounting Inspector General.
- The allegations replicate a prior case (Murray McIver I) which had already been dismissed, in part, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status but the complaint was reviewed under the standards applicable to IFP actions (28 U.S.C. § 1915).
- The claim seeks monetary damages relating to actions by the USPS or its Inspector General.
- The USPS, as a federal entity, is protected by sovereign immunity except in specific, statutorily defined situations.
- The court chose not to grant leave to amend because the legal deficiency (sovereign immunity) could not be cured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over claims against USPS/IG | USPS/IG liable for damages | Court lacks jurisdiction; sovereign immunity | Dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
| Applicability of sovereign immunity | None specified | Immunity applies except if waived | USPS/IG protected by sovereign immunity |
| Waiver under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) | Not addressed | Postal matter exception applies | No waiver; postal matter exception preserves immunity |
| Futility of amendment | Not addressed | Amendment futile due to immunity | No leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (sovereign immunity bars federal suits against the government unless explicitly waived)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction over claims against the United States)
- Dolan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 546 U.S. 481 (USPS is protected by sovereign immunity; exceptions are narrowly construed)
- Raila v. United States, 355 F.3d 118 (FTCA's postal matter exception preserves immunity for claims arising from loss or negligent transmission of mail)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (courts must construe pro se pleadings liberally)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (pro se complaints are interpreted to raise the strongest possible claims)