Heitkamp v. United States Postal Service
- John Tunheim
- 0:22-cv-01689
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Heitkamp v. Postal Service, Judge Tunheim granted the government’s motion and dismissed the case without prejudice because Heitkamp did not properly serve the agency.
Nicholas Heitkamp and the United States Postal Service, which was replaced in the case by the United States of America.
What happened
In Heitkamp v. United States Postal Service, Nicholas Heitkamp claimed that someone opened, cut, and stapled mail in his post-office box, violating federal law. He sought $15,070 from the Postal Service.
The government asked to dismiss the case because Heitkamp had not followed the required procedures for serving a federal agency. He did not send the summons and complaint to the required government offices, and he did not show a good reason for failing to do so within 90 days.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court did not decide the government’s separate argument that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the service problem required dismissal; the court said Heitkamp may refile if he properly serves the defendant.
The detailed version
- Heitkamp v. United States Postal Service · No. 0:22-cv-01689
- John Tunheim
- Nov. 23, 2022
Background
Nicholas Heitkamp, representing himself, filed a claim against the United States Postal Service in Hennepin County Conciliation Court. He alleged that someone opened mail in his post-office box in April 2022, and that the mail was cut and stapled in violation of federal law. He sought $15,070.
The Postal Service removed the case to federal court. The United States of America was substituted for the Postal Service under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a). The government later moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 4(m), arguing that Heitkamp had not completed service. Heitkamp did not respond to the motion. The court nevertheless considered the motion on its merits because he was representing himself.
Service requirements
Rule 4(i) governs service of a federal agency. In general, a plaintiff must serve the United States Attorney for the district where the case is filed, send the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States in Washington, D.C., and send the documents to the federal agency being sued.
The court found that Heitkamp had not completed these requirements. There was no evidence that he served the Attorney General or the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota. He also did not show good cause for failing to complete service within the required 90-day period. The court explained that, without good cause, it could consider whether to allow more time based on excusable neglect, but it concluded that dismissal was required here.
Ruling
Judge John R. Tunheim held that the complaint had to be dismissed under Rule 4(m) because Heitkamp did not properly serve the Postal Service. The court granted the government’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Heitkamp may refile the action in the future.
Because dismissal was required for defective service, the court did not reach the government’s subject-matter-jurisdiction argument and stated that argument was moot. The court noted that a jurisdictional challenge could be raised if Heitkamp refiled and properly served the defendant.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.