Dismissal for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
(November 2010) By Lydia S. Hu, Associate
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
Maurice Dosso v. United States Postal Service,
Civil Action No. CCB-10-1703 (D. Md. November 24, 2010) |
View pdf
The Honorable Catherine C. Blake dismissed Plaintiff's
Complaint for breach of contract filed against the United States Postal Service
("USPS") for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff claims that
he shipped a laptop computer to West Africa, but as the computer allegedly never
arrived, he sought insurance indemnification from USPS.
Several weeks after sending the laptop from the Landover,
Maryland USPS location, Plaintiff contacted the international Express Mail
inquiry center and initiated an inquiry regarding his shipment. By letter dated
six months later, the USPS provided notice to Plaintiff that his claim could not
be processed until he provided "evidence of value" in the form of a receipt of
purchase for the laptop or a website printout evidencing the computer's value
accompanied by a signed statement indicating the reason for his failure to
produce a receipt of purchase. The USPS did not insist upon the original receipt
for the actual computer as Plaintiff indicated previously that he had lost the
original purchase receipt. Plaintiff did not respond to that letter.
Plaintiff filed this breach of contract action seeking
insurance indemnification for the lost computer. The USPS filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies.
Plaintiff argued that he should be excused from
exhaustion of administrative remedies for three reasons. First, he argued
that the government now has sufficient information to process his claim
because in response to the instant Motion to Dismiss, he provided the
requested declaration and computer printout information. The Court decided
that the declaration did not cure his failure to exhaust administrative
remedies because he was required to file the declaration
before the lawsuit.
Second, Plaintiff claims that he never received
correspondence from the USPS providing a final decision on his claim.
However, he conceded that he received the correspondence from the agency
stating that he needed to provide a website printout of the computer showing
its value and a signed statement. He acknowledges that he never performed
such task.
Third, Plaintiff argued that he did not have notice of
the administrative procedures required by the International Mail Manual
("IMM"). The Court explained that the IMM is incorporated by reference into
the Code of Federal Regulations and is thereby deemed published.
Additionally, the IMM is available online.
The Court noted that none of these arguments fall
within any of the recognized exceptions to the general rule that parties
must exhaust administrative remedies before challenging the action in court.
There are five (5) recognized exceptions, including: 1) no facts are
disputed; 2) the disputed issue is outside of the agency's expertise; 3) the
agency may not have the authority to challenge its decision in a way that
would satisfy the challenger's objection; 4) requiring resort to the
administrative process may prejudice the litigant's court action; and 5) the
administrative process may be inadequate because of agency bias.
Plaintiff was deemed aware of the IMM procedures for
filing a request for insurance indemnification from the USPS for a lost
package. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to comply with the procedures when he
did not provide evidence of value as requested by USPS. Accordingly, the
Court dismissed Plaintiff's action for breach of contract based on failure
to exhaust administrative remedies.
Top
