Breaux v. United States Postal Service

Fifth Circuit

Breaux v. United States Postal Service

202 F.3d 820, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1969, 2000 WL 96004

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 14, 2000

Docket99-40582

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 202 F.3d 820 (Breaux v. United States Postal Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Breaux v. United States Postal Service, 202 F.3d 820, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1969, 2000 WL 96004 (5th Cir. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Joseph N. Breaux (“Breaux”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his class action lawsuit under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm for the alternate reason that Breaux lacked standing to bring this lawsuit. See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway, 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1981).

Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal courts’ jurisdiction to “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2. To satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury in fact; (2) traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision of this Court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The Supreme Court has described the injury require *821 ment for standing as an “injury in fact” that is “distinct and palpable” and not “abstract,” “conjectural,” or “hypothetical.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).

Because Breaux did not allege that any of his mail was untimely delivered by Express Mail, he has not alleged an injury in fact caused by his use of the Express Mail service. Accordingly, Breaux lacked standing to bring this class action lawsuit. Neither do we find any merit in Breaux’s argument that his lawsuit is not about the failure of the Postal Service to timely deliver his mail, but rather “the failure of the USPS to notify a postal patron when [ ] a claim [for a refund] accrues or becomes applicable, and to obtain restitution on a statically [sic] valid basis.” Even assuming the Postal Service had the duty to notify postal patrons of late deliveries, which is not supported by the face of the Express Mail contract, Breaux did not show that the Postal Service breached this duty to him personally such that he suffered an actual injury from his use of the Express Mail service. The district court’s dismissal of this action is therefore AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Joseph N. Breaux (“Breaux”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his class action lawsuit under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm for the alternate reason that Breaux lacked standing to bring this lawsuit. See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway, 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1981).

Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal courts’ jurisdiction to “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2. To satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury in fact; (2) traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable decision of this Court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). The Supreme Court has described the injury require *821 ment for standing as an “injury in fact” that is “distinct and palpable” and not “abstract,” “conjectural,” or “hypothetical.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).

Because Breaux did not allege that any of his mail was untimely delivered by Express Mail, he has not alleged an injury in fact caused by his use of the Express Mail service. Accordingly, Breaux lacked standing to bring this class action lawsuit. Neither do we find any merit in Breaux’s argument that his lawsuit is not about the failure of the Postal Service to timely deliver his mail, but rather “the failure of the USPS to notify a postal patron when [ ] a claim [for a refund] accrues or becomes applicable, and to obtain restitution on a statically [sic] valid basis.” Even assuming the Postal Service had the duty to notify postal patrons of late deliveries, which is not supported by the face of the Express Mail contract, Breaux did not show that the Postal Service breached this duty to him personally such that he suffered an actual injury from his use of the Express Mail service. The district court’s dismissal of this action is therefore AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 F.3d 820, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1969, 2000 WL 96004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breaux-v-united-states-postal-service-ca5-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack