Tucker v. United States Postal Service

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 CAROL LORRAINE TUCKER, 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 3:20-cv-05537-RAJ v. 11 ORDER

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, 12 13 Defendant. 14 15 Following Judge Ronald B. Leighton’s retirement, this matter was reassigned to 16 this Court. Dkt. # 27. Months ago, while this matter was before Judge Leighton, 17 Plaintiff Carol Lorraine Tucker submitted an “Emergency Filing,” Dkt. # 9, which the 18 Government and Judge Leighton construed as a motion for a temporary restraining order 19 (“TRO”), Dkt. ## 18, 21. Ms. Tucker sought an injunction requiring the Ocean Shores 20 United States Postal Service to do the following: 21 1. Immediately cease and desist from refusing to deliver mail, or returning mail as Undeliverable, to [her] post office box whether addressed to [her] street address or 22 post office box; 23 2. That all parcels, whether addressed to [her] street address or post office box be 24 delivered to a parcel locker per 2019 agreement;

25 3. That parcels too large for a parcel locker, whether addressed to [her] street 26 address or post office box be delivered to [her] front door;

27 4. That Ocean Shores Post Office immediately cease and desist from further acts of retaliation against [her]; 1

2 5. That since USPS Seattle Regional Office repeatedly refuses to discipline or remove the postmaster, carrier, and box clerks who have perpetrated said acts of 3 retaliation against [her], that this esteemed Court order the United States Postal Inspection Service immediately investigate and monitor said employees[.] 4 5 Dkt. # 9 at 2. 6 After reviewing the materials—including Ms. Tucker’s supplements to her 7 motion—Judge Leighton denied the motion for a TRO, holding that Ms. Tucker failed to 8 meet any of the four factors set forth in Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 20 (2008). Dkt. # 21. Ms. Tucker then filed a motion for reconsideration, Dkt. # 23, 10 which Judge Leighton denied for being untimely and without merit, Dkt. # 26. 11 Two days after reassignment to this Court, Ms. Tucker filed a “Submission of 12 New Emergency Filing.” Dkt. # 29. The submission cites no case law or any other 13 authority. Id. Instead, Ms. Tucker bases the submission on “hopes that Judge Jones will 14 give it the attention and justice it and [she] deserve[s], unlike Judge Leighton.” Id. The 15 Government, yet again, construed the “request” for an “emergency order” as a motion for 16 a TRO and responded. Dkt. ## 31, 32. In her reply, Ms. Tucker did not object to that 17 interpretation. Dkt. # 33. 18 Construing the submission as a motion for a TRO, the Court finds that Ms. Tucker 19 is not entitled to emergency relief. Ms. Tucker already requested a TRO. Dkt. # 9. She 20 supplemented her request five times. Dkt. ## 10-13, 15. Her request was denied for 21 failing to meet any of the four TRO factors: likelihood of success on the merits, 22 likelihood of suffering irreparable harm, balance of the equities, or public interest. Dkt. 23 # 21. She moved for reconsideration and filed a supplement to boot. Dkt. ## 23, 24. 24 Reconsideration was denied. Dkt. # 26. As the Government observes, the Court’s denial 25 of the previous motion for a TRO and motion for reconsideration are the law of the case. 26 Dkt. # 32 at 3-4. As such, they preclude any relief here. 27 Under the “law of the case” doctrine, “a court is generally precluded from 1 reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court 2 in the identical case.” Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 3 508 U.S. 951 (1993). “A court may have discretion to depart from the law of the case 4 where: 1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; 2) an intervening change in the law has 5 occurred; 3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; 4) other changed 6 circumstances exist; or 5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result.” United States v. 7 Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). None of those five circumstances are 8 present here. 9 Of course, the relief that Ms. Tucker seeks here varies from the relief she sought in 10 her initial motion for a TRO—but only slightly. Compare Dkt. # 29 at 2 with Dkt. # 9 at 11 2. As Judge Leighton previously observed, in her previous motion for a TRO, Ms. 12 Tucker at bottom “claim[ed that] the Ocean Shores Post Office [was] not handling her 13 mail and packages in the manner she desire[d].” Dkt. # 21 at 1. The same is true here. 14 Like her previous request for injunctive relief, Ms. Tucker’s instant request fails to show 15 any of the four TRO factors: likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of suffering 16 irreparable harm, balance of the equities, or public interest. Thus, to the extent that this 17 request for injunctive relief varies from the previous one, it is denied. 18 For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Ms. Tucker’s Submission of New 19 Emergency Filing. Dkt. # 29.

20 DATED this 8th day of September, 2020. 21 A 22 23 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27