Terry v. United States
2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1709
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Plaintiff prepaid for six months of a Columbia, SC PO Box on Nov 17, 2009 and used it as his mailing address in a 2010 federal case.
- Mail addressed to Bermuda using the PO Box as return address was returned for insufficient postage in Feb 2010; court documents were later marked undeliverable in March 2010.
- Plaintiff learned in March 2010 that mail to the PO Box was not being opened or labeled timely by Hank, an employee with management duties at the Columbia PO Box.
- Plaintiff sought relief by filing an administrative tort claim with USPS in March 2010 and later pursued two federal prosecutions against USPS for mislabeling the PO Box and related delays.
- In 2010–2011, the district court dismissed related complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the August 11, 2010 complaint.
- On February 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging breach of contract and related damages from USPS mislabeling the PO Box.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act | Terry claims an express contract existed with the USPS via PO Box prepaid use. | Claims sound in tort or lack a valid contract; the Tucker Act requires a separate substantive money-right source. | No jurisdiction; no valid contract or proper statutory basis shown. |
| Whether Plaintiff has standing | Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and other injuries traceable to USPS conduct. | Standing not contested except as to jurisdiction; but damages here are not properly cognizable. | Standing found for the alleged injury but jurisdiction remained lacking. |
| Whether pro se status affects analysis | Pro se status warrants leniency in pleading. | Pro se status does not excuse failure to plead jurisdiction and legal theory. | Court notes pro se status; nevertheless dismisses for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. |
| Whether the complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | There was a contractual relationship with the United States for PO Box services. | Claims for mishandling mail are torts and dehors Tucker Act jurisdiction; no authorized contract liability. | Motion granted; lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether the complaint should be dismissed under RCFC 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim | Damages, including emotional distress, are recoverable under contract breach and postal regulations. | DMM and Postal Service regulations do not authorize liability or damages for emotional distress; damages speculative. | Motion granted; complaint fails to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blazavich v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 371 (1993) (claims about mishandling of mail sound in tort; Court lacks jurisdiction)
- Naskar v. United States, 82 Fed.Cl. 319 (2008) (damages for negligent mail handling sound in tort; jurisdiction lacking)
- Twentier v. United States, 109 F.Supp. 406 (Ct.Cl. 1953) (postal liability requires explicit statutory assignment; not present)
- Pratt v. United States, 50 Fed.Cl. 469 (2001) (emotional distress damages for breach of contract are generally disallowed)
- Ancman v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 368 (2007) (emotional distress claims in tort; not within Claims Court jurisdiction)
- Bohac v. Dep’t of Agric., 239 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (emotional distress damages for breach of contract generally not recoverable)
- Iqbal v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading plausibility standard for federal claims)
- First Fed. Lincoln Bank v. United States, 518 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (attenuated damages for breach must be reasonably foreseeable and proven)
- Ramsey v. United States, 101 F. Supp. 353 (1951) (preliminary damages may be unavailable for breach-related financial losses)