Garrett

Court of Claims

Garrett

566 F.2d 1191, 215 Ct. Cl. 968, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 271

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 11, 1977

DocketNo. 320-77

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 566 F.2d 1191 (Garrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garrett, 566 F.2d 1191, 215 Ct. Cl. 968, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 271 (cc 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

"In this pro se case plaintiff asserts that in May 1977 he mailed to this court, by certified mail, a notarized 'complaint’, but that through the Government’s 'neglect and default’ the document was misdelivered to and mistakenly accepted by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He asks $500,000 in punitive damages and $499,999.99 in compensatory damages. Although he states that 'the complaint in the original mail packet * * * was of acute value’ to him, he does not say how he was injured by the misdelivery.

"Defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that the claim, if any, plainly sounds in tort, and that this court has no original jurisdiction of tort suits. That proposition is, of course, beyond dispute. See, e.g., Vincin v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 762 (1972); Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 649, 663 (1970). We have no power to entertain the claim plaintiff presents. Nor is there any point to transfer of the case to a district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1506, for processing under the Tort Claims Act since that statute excepts from its coverage 'any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter’ (28 U.S.C. § 2680(b)).

"It is therefore ordered and concluded that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

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

"In this pro se case plaintiff asserts that in May 1977 he mailed to this court, by certified mail, a notarized 'complaint’, but that through the Government’s 'neglect and default’ the document was misdelivered to and mistakenly accepted by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He asks $500,000 in punitive damages and $499,999.99 in compensatory damages. Although he states that 'the complaint in the original mail packet * * * was of acute value’ to him, he does not say how he was injured by the misdelivery.

"Defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that the claim, if any, plainly sounds in tort, and that this court has no original jurisdiction of tort suits. That proposition is, of course, beyond dispute. See, e.g., Vincin v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 762 (1972); Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 649, 663 (1970). We have no power to entertain the claim plaintiff presents. Nor is there any point to transfer of the case to a district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1506, for processing under the Tort Claims Act since that statute excepts from its coverage 'any claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter’ (28 U.S.C. § 2680(b)).

"It is therefore ordered and concluded that defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 F.2d 1191, 215 Ct. Cl. 968, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-cc-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack