Miller v. U.S. Postal Inspection Service

Background

Paris Miller, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a pleading that the court treated as an amended complaint. Miller named the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), which the opinion describes as an arm of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and Damian Williams, identified as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Miller alleged that two postal money orders, each purchased to pay rent, were stolen from a USPS mailbox in the Bronx. According to the complaint, the money orders were altered and sent to Angela Melendez in Brooklyn. Miller alleged that the USPIS failed to investigate or arrest the people responsible, failed to protect Miller, and failed to make them pay restitution. Miller sought $500,000 for alleged failure to protect, discrimination, negligence, emotional distress, and equal-protection violations. The opinion also understood Miller to seek an investigation, criminal prosecutions, protection, damages, and relief concerning the alleged failure to deliver the money orders to the landlord.

The court had previously allowed Miller to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore reviewed the complaint under the federal statute requiring dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the claims.

Rulings

Requests for criminal prosecution. The court dismissed, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, any claims seeking the criminal prosecution of other people. It held that decisions to prosecute belong to prosecutors, and that a private plaintiff cannot direct prosecutors or the court to begin a criminal case.

Failure to investigate or protect. The court treated Miller’s claims against Williams, and potentially individual USPIS officials, as constitutional damages claims under a judge-created remedy for violations by individual federal officials. The court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim because the officials had no constitutional duty to investigate the alleged crimes or protect Miller from the private individuals identified in the complaint.

Claims against federal entities and Williams in his official capacity. The court held that sovereign immunity generally bars suits against the federal government, its agencies, and federal officers sued in their official capacities unless immunity has been waived.

Federal Tort Claims Act claims. The court dismissed Miller’s damages claims against the USPS, the USPIS, and Williams in his official capacity under the Federal Tort Claims Act because sovereign immunity barred those claims. The court then construed the claims as being brought against the United States, but dismissed them as well. It dismissed claims concerning the alleged failure to deliver the postal money orders because the Act’s waiver does not cover claims arising from the loss or negligent transmission of postal matter. It dismissed claims concerning failure to enforce the law, investigate, or prosecute because those decisions fall within the statute’s discretionary-function exception. It also dismissed claims against the United States for constitutional torts because the statute does not provide that remedy in these circumstances.

Administrative Procedure Act claims. The court understood Miller to seek court orders requiring the USPS, the USPIS, or Williams in his official capacity to investigate, protect Miller, or prosecute the alleged wrongdoers. The court dismissed these claims under sovereign immunity and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It also dismissed claims against Williams seeking prosecution because an agency’s decision whether to prosecute is generally discretionary and not subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court noted that the Act may not apply to the USPS, but stated that, in any event, Miller identified no legal requirement that the defendants investigate the alleged crimes or protect Miller from them.

Leave to amend and other matters. The court denied leave to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the action, denied as moot any request for appointed volunteer counsel, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court expressly offered no opinion on the merits of a separate civil action seeking a refund of the postal money orders.