August 21, 2017

In the Matter of the Withholding of Mail

FRANCES WAGE v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

P.S. Docket No. WM 16-289

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER
Frances Wage, pro se

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT
David Conrad Forde, Esq.
Postal Inspector Attorney

INITIAL DECISION

Respondent United States Postal Service filed a Motion to Dismiss in the above captioned case of Wage v. United States Postal Service, WM 16-289.

BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2016, Petitioner Frances Wage filed a Petition for Hearing on Withholding of Mail (“Petition”).  According to the Petition, without formal notice of withholding of mail being issued, Petitioner’s mail to various addresses in Lowell, Arkansas was wrongfully withheld by the Postmaster Don Knotts (“Postmaster”).  The affected addresses are 202 Bluff Drive, Lowell, AR 72745, where Petitioner resides, and 315 Center Street, Lowell, AR 72745, where Petitioner is housesitting for her father.
Petitioner alleges that the Postmaster began withholding mail in August, 2016 (Petitioner’s Objection, 1, Att. 1-6),¹ a fact she discovered on October 14, 2016, when she attempted to pick up a package sent to her (Petition).  At that time, Petitioner began to investigate the purported withholding of her mail.  Petitioner made formal complaints to the Postal Service and the Lowell Police Department,² contacted the offices of two members of Congress, and visited the offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Fayetteville, AR, and Respondent’s Consumer Affairs and Claims Manager in Little Rock, AR (Petitioner Statement for Court Jurisdiction).  Eventually, Petitioner filed this Petition in accordance with our rules.  See 39 C.F.R. Part 964.
In lieu of an Answer, Respondent filed the present motion requesting dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction.  Respondent asserts that the Postal Service has not issued a Notice of Withholding to Petitioner, nor is it in the process of seeking a withholding order against Petitioner (Agency’s Motion to Dismiss).  Accordingly, Respondent states that as the Postal Service has not intentionally or formally withheld Petitioner’s mail “seeking to contest any perceived action is premature and could not result in the imposition of a remedy.”  Id.  Instead, Respondent suggests that the course of action already commenced by Petitioner (the filing of a consumer complaint) is the correct means of redress.  Accordingly, Respondent asks that the case be dismissed.
In response to the motion, I filed an Order to Show Cause, interpreting the motion as a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which seeks dismissal when there is a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  I indicated that this Court may not have jurisdiction under the facts of this particular case, and that the case would be dismissed if no objection was raised. Petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss and Request for Summary Judgment.  Petitioner argued that although no formal notice of mail withholding had been issued, the Postmaster had nonetheless prevented mail from delivery “thereby denying Petitioner Due Process.”  Id. at 2.  Further, she refutes Respondent’s suggestion that she should proceed with the complaint process, noting that the Postal Service has failed to respond to either complaint filed thus far.  Id.
Petitioner subsequently filed additional pleadings — Petitioner Amended Statement for Court Jurisdiction, Petitioner Addresses the Issue of Mootness from the Teleconference of January 6, 2017, and Petitioner Statement that the Withholding of Mail is Ongoing and Request for Injunction — all of which generally relate to the question of this Court’s jurisdiction.

DECISION

Respondent seeks dismissal of this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.³  Rule 12(b)(6) provides:
Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:
….
(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  Respondent contends that no relief may be granted as there is no claim before the Court which it may properly adjudicate.  I agree.
The Postal Service has the authority, in certain circumstances, to withhold the delivery of an individual’s mail pursuant to 39 U.S.C. §§ 3003 and 3004.  That individual may then petition the Judicial Officer Department for reinstatement of delivery, as the Petitioner has done in this case.  As stated in 39 C.F.R. § 964.3:
Any addressee who receives notice from the Chief Postal Inspector or his delegate that his mail has been withheld pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3003(a) or 3004 may oppose such action by filing with the Judicial Officer a written Petition stating the reasons for his or her opposition.
The above action is a prerequisite to adjudication under 39 C.F.R. Part 964. 
My jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the Postal Inspection Service orders the withholding of mail that it determines is involved in illegal activity under 39 U.S.C. § 3003 or § 3004. Respondent has shown that no such order exists.  Notwithstanding the delivery issues Petitioner faced, she provided no evidence to show that a withholding order is in place.  In the absence of an active withholding order, I lack jurisdiction to hear this case.  Further, I am not aware of any other statutory or regulatory authority which would separately create jurisdiction in this matter.

ORDER

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Any and all outstanding motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Petition is DISMISSED.

James G. Gilbert
Chief Administrative Law Judge