Greene v. United States

Background

Cedric Greene, who was representing himself, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He alleged that a birthday card and postal money order sent through the United States Postal Service on September 9, 2023, were delayed and damaged, and that it was unclear whether the package was ever delivered. He also referred to mail sent to the Court of Claims on October 2, 2023, that did not arrive until October 16, 2023.

Greene was proceeding without paying the filing fee. The court therefore screened the complaint under the statute governing such cases, which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity does not cover claims arising from “the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of letters or postal matter. Sovereign immunity generally protects the United States from lawsuits unless it has agreed to be sued. The court explained that this postal-matter exception covers mail that fails to arrive, arrives late, arrives damaged, or arrives at the wrong address.

The court also addressed the possibility of a contract claim involving registered or insured mail. It concluded that Greene did not have such a claim because he stated that the package was sent by certified mail, which does not include insurance coverage under the cited postal regulations.

Disposition

The court dismissed Greene’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It declined to grant leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by revising the complaint. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Greene permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. It also warned that further frivolous or vexatious litigation could result in an order restricting his ability to file new actions without fees unless he first received permission.

Prior related litigation

The opinion states that Greene had previously brought a related action in the Court of Claims and had already been told that claims involving lost, delayed, or misdelivered mail could not proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The opinion also describes the Court of Claims’ discussion of Greene’s broader litigation history.