Perdue v. Post Master

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: February 7, 2020
• Docket: 4:19-cv-05221
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Feb 07, 2020 4 5 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 ROBERT PERDUE, PATRICIA No. 4:19-CV-05221-SAB 10 PERDUE, and “SCOUT”, 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING 12 v. PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTRUED 13 POSTMASTER PASCO, MOTION FOR 14 Defendant. RECONSIDERATION 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF 17 No. 15. The motion was considered without oral argument. Plaintiffs are 18 proceeding pro se and the Government is represented by Assistant United States 19 Attorney Tim Durkin. Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its Order, ECF 20 No. 14, dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as 21 they raise their claims before the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC). ECF No. 22 15. Having considered the motion and the relevant caselaw, the Court denies 23 Plaintiffs’ motion. 24 BACKGROUND 25 This case arises out of an incident involving Plaintiffs’ pet dog, Scout, and a 26 U.S. Letter Carrier. On or about January 8, 2019, Letter Carrier Daniel Vasquez 27 submitted a Dog Interference Form after he was attacked and bitten by a dog while 28 delivering mail to Plaintiffs’ home in Kennewick, Washington. ECF No. 6 at 1-2. 1 Pursuant to U.S. Postal Service policy, Vasquez suggested that delivery to the 2 Perdue home be halted until the issue with their dog, Scout, could be corrected. 3 ECF No. 7-3 at 32. Two days later, Plaintiffs received a Dog Interference Letter, 4 notifying them that they were required to rent a P.O. box and pick up their mail at 5 the Pasco General Mail Facility unless the situation with Scout was corrected by 6 keeping Scout contained during mail delivery hours. ECF No. 7-4 at 33. On or 7 about March 13, 2019, Vasquez submitted a second Dog Interference Form 8 reporting that he was again attacked by Scout while delivering mail to Plaintiffs’ 9 neighbor. ECF No. 7-6 at 35. Again, Vasquez suggested the Postal Service halt 10 home delivery to Plaintiffs’ neighbor until Plaintiffs took remedial action to 11 contain Scout. Id. Plaintiffs have apparently not taken any remedial action to 12 address the Postal Service’s safety concerns regarding Scout. Pursuant to U.S. 13 Postal Service policy, the Postal Service has not reinstated mail delivery to 14 Plaintiffs’ home. See ECF No. 7-1. 15 Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on September 6, 2019, seeking an Order from 16 the Court directing the Postal Service to restore home delivery. ECF No. 1. On 17 October 28, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction 18 under Rule 12(b)(1). In its motion, Defendant argued that the Court lacked 19 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ complaints because the Postal Accountability and 20 Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) grants exclusive jurisdiction over complaints 21 related to postal service and rates to the Postal Regulatory Commission. See 39 22 U.S.C. § 3662(a). On December 27, 2019, the Court found it lacked jurisdiction 23 under the PAEA and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2020, 24 the Court received the instant motion, which has been construed as a motion for 25 reconsideration. 26 STANDARD 27 Documents filed pro se are “liberally construed” and “however inartfully 28 pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 1 lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 2 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, this liberal standard does not relieve the 3 plaintiff of the burden to show that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over 4 his claims. Vacek v. U.S. Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 Reconsideration under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) is a drastic remedy 6 and should be used sparingly “in the interests of finality and conservation of 7 judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 8 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate if used to revisit 9 issues already addressed by the Court or to advance new arguments that could have 10 been raised in prior briefing. Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. 11 Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Instead, a motion for reconsideration 12 should be granted, “absent highly unusual circumstances,” only if the court is: (1) 13 presented with new evidence; (2) committed clear error; or (3) if there is an 14 intervening change in the controlling law. Kona Enterprises, 229 F.3d at 890. 15 “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of 16 the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian 17 Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 DISCUSSION 19 Having considered the Motion and applicable caselaw, the Court concludes 20 that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the high bar required for a motion for 21 reconsideration. Plaintiffs have not introduced new evidence, shown that the Court 22 committed clear error in dismissing their Complaint, or shown that there has been 23 an intervening change in controlling law. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ motion does not 24 acknowledge the grounds on which their Complaint was dismissed. Even 25 construing this motion as a motion to stay proceedings, the Court would not have 26 jurisdiction to grant a stay—this Court cannot hear complaints related to postal 27 services under the PAEA. Insofar as Plaintiffs’ want to “hold their place in line,” 28 they would need to have a final judgment from the PRC for this Court to act. See 1/39 U.S.C. § 3664. Then—and only then—would the Court have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 15, is 5|| DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order, to provide copies to counsel, and close this file. 8 DATED this 7th day of February 2020. 9 10 11 ‘ 2 Souler Ses than Stanley A. Bastian United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RECONSTDERATION *24