White v. United States Post Office

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 2024
• Docket: 23-1239
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 13, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JAMES L. WHITE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 23-1239 (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-01248-CNS-NRN) UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, (D. Colo.)

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MORITZ, ROSSMAN, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

James L. White appeals the dismissal of his pro se action against the United

States Postal Service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to

state a claim. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate the district

court’s merits dismissal and remand with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of

jurisdiction.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 2

I

White asserted four claims alleging that Postal Service employees rendered

poor customer service because of discrimination. Claim one alleged he is a Black

man who went to the post office “to start a new 30 day hold” on his mail. R. at 31.

He waited in line behind a white woman who had no problems with the white postal

clerk, but when it was White’s turn, the postal clerk “gave [him] an unfavorable

look[,] slammed the window[,] and came back with a” Black postal clerk “so it

wouldn’t look like discrimination.” Id. The Black clerk falsely told him they could

not hold his mail, making him feel disrespected and treated differently because of his

race. Claims two, three, and four similarly attributed poor customer service to

discrimination after White did not receive his mail and postal employees entered

incorrect information into the system for holding his mail. All four claims asserted

violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a to 2000a-6.

The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss

claims two, three, and four for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8.1 The Postal Service then moved to dismiss claim one under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing

that Title II prohibits discrimination in any “place of public accommodation” under

the statutory definition, which does not include post offices. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(b).

The magistrate judge agreed and recommended dismissal. The district court adopted

the recommendation and dismissed the case. White appealed.

1 White does not challenge this ruling. 2 Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 3

II

Our analysis begins and ends with a jurisdictional defect. Although the district

court did not address the jurisdictional question, we have an independent obligation

to examine subject matter jurisdiction. Garling v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 849 F.3d

1289, 1293 (10th Cir. 2017). Indeed, “on every appeal, the first and fundamental

question is that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from which

the record comes.” In re Lang, 414 F.3d 1191, 1195 (10th Cir. 2005) (brackets,

ellipsis, italics, and internal quotation marks omitted). We have jurisdiction to

review the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See, e.g., Garling, 849 F.3d at

1292 (exercising appellate jurisdiction over a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanding

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The Postal Service contends,

however, that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Postal Regulatory

Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over mail service complaints like White’s.

We review de novo whether subject matter jurisdiction was proper. 1mage Software,

Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044, 1048 (10th Cir. 2006).

Under 39 U.S.C. § 3662(a), the Postal Regulatory Commission has exclusive

jurisdiction over claims regarding postal rates and services. See LeMay v. United

States Postal Serv., 450 F.3d 797, 799-800 (8th Cir. 2006); McDermott v. Potter,

No. C09-0776RSL, 2009 WL 2971585, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2009), aff’d

sub nom., McDermott v. Donahue, 408 F. App’x 51 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).

The statute provides: “Any interested person . . . who believes the Postal Service is

not operating in conformance with the requirements of the provisions of sections

3 Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 4

101(d), 401(2), 403(c), 404a, or 601, or this chapter . . . may lodge a complaint with

the Postal Regulatory Commission . . . .” 39 U.S.C. § 3662(a). In turn, § 403(c)

states that “[i]n providing services . . . , the Postal Service shall not . . . make any

undue or unreasonable discrimination among users of the mail, nor shall it grant any

undue or unreasonable preferences to any such user.” Appellate review of decisions

rendered by the Postal Regulatory Commission lies in the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia. Id. § 3663. And district courts have

jurisdiction to enforce, enjoin, and restrain the Postal Service from violating orders

issued by the Postal Regulatory Commission. Id. § 3664. Under this statutory

scheme, the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider service-related complaints

against the Postal Service in the first instance. Rodriguez v. Hemit, No. C16-778

RAJ, 2018 WL 3618260, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 30, 2018) (unpublished).

The question, then, is whether White’s claim is properly characterized as a

service-related complaint that falls within the scope of § 3662(a). In discerning the

nature of his claim, we evaluate the substance of his allegations, not the labels

attached to them. Weaver v. United States, 98 F.3d 518, 520 (10th Cir. 1996). White

alleged the Postal Service clerks refused to hold his mail. He asserted one clerk gave

him a bad look, slammed the window closed, and returned with another clerk who

falsely told him they could not hold his mail. He averred that the white customer in

line before him faced no such difficulty, so he attributed the poor service to

discrimination. However, White’s allegations in substance describe a customer

service complaint for the refusal to hold his mail. Indeed, “[c]omplaints about how

4 Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 5

the Postal Service holds and delivers mail are inherently mail service claims [that fall

under § 3662(a)].” Ssebanakitta v. Raymond, No. 20-1167-EFM-GEB, 2020 WL

6798819, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 19, 2020), aff’d, 845 F. App’x 797, 798 (10th Cir.

2021) (unpublished). Although White attributed the poor service he received to

discriminatory animus—alleging the postal clerks slammed the window closed and

refused to hold his mail—his allegations place his claim squarely within the

parameters of § 403(c) and § 3662(a). See Murphy v. United States Postal Serv.,

No. C 14-02156 SI, 2014 WL 4437731, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2014)

(unpublished) (holding that, because § 3662 requires service-related claims to be

filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission, the district court lacked jurisdiction

over plaintiff’s claim “that defendant unlawfully discriminated among postal

customers when a Postal Service clerk closed a service window and did not return

while plaintiff attempted to obtain service”). The exclusive remedy for such claims

lies with the Postal Regulatory Commission, and thus the district court lacked

jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim.

We reached a similar conclusion in Bovard v. United States Post Office,

No. 94-6360, 1995 WL 74678 (10th Cir. Feb. 24, 1995) (unpublished). In Bovard,

the plaintiffs alleged they were subjected to unreasonable discrimination in violation

of § 403(c) because the postmaster changed the morning mail delivery service to

afternoon delivery. Id. at *1. We held that, “[w]hile the plaintiffs have alleged

unreasonable discrimination, . . . their claim [was] more appropriately characterized

as a complaint regarding their mail service.” Id. We further noted that “[t]he

5 Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 6

language of § 3662 makes clear that a postal customer’s remedy for unsatisfactory

service lies with the Postal [Regulatory] Commission, and that Congress did not

intend to create a private right of action for service complaints.” Id. We therefore

concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim. Id.

The Eighth Circuit followed a similar approach in LeMay. Citing our decision

in Bovard, the Eighth Circuit held the Postal Regulatory Commission has exclusive

jurisdiction over mail service complaints. See LeMay, 450 F.3d at 800. The court

thus examined what was ostensibly a contract claim and determined the allegations

that “the Postal Service had a contractual obligation to provide priority services”

“echo[ed] contract, but the issues [were] classic questions of postal rates and

services.” Id. at 800-01 (internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, the court

concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim, which

should have been brought before the Postal Regulatory Commission. Id. at 801;

accord Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp., 549 F. App’x 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

(unpublished) (affirming dismissal of § 404a claim because § 3662(a) conferred

exclusive jurisdiction over such claims to the Postal Regulatory Commission, with

appellate review in the D.C. Circuit under § 3663).

These cases confirm our conclusion: White’s allegations present a mail

service complaint that falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Postal Regulatory

6 Appellate Case: 23-1239 Document: 010111064643 Date Filed: 06/13/2024 Page: 7

Commission. Therefore, the action should have been dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.2

III

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is vacated, and this case is

remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of

jurisdiction. White’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and

fees is granted.

Entered for the Court

Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge

2 We note, however, that 39 U.S.C. § 3662(a) would have no relevance to a non-service related discrimination claim. Moreover, dismissal of White’s claim in this case does not necessarily preclude him from voicing his concerns about alleged discrimination in an appropriate forum. For example, the magistrate judge observed—and the district court reiterated—that in addition to submitting a complaint to the Postal Regulatory Commission, White could contact “the Postal Service’s district consumer affairs office[,] . . . the headquarters Consumer Advocate office[,] [or] [the] Office of the Inspector General . . . .” R. at 82. 7