The opinion
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-30-2007
Hooker v. US Post Ofc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3084
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Hooker v. US Post Ofc" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 166.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/166
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-57 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3084
___________
COREY A. HOOKER,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE, OVERBROOK STATION
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-02639)
District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
November 16, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: November 30, 2007)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
On June 16, 2007, Corey A. Hooker, filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the United States Postal Service. In
the complaint, Hooker alleged that the Postal Service had negligently allowed an
unidentified person to forge his signature on mail forwarding forms, thus causing his mail
to be forwarded to an unknown address. Hooker sought $50 million in damages. On
June 27, 2007, the District Court found that Hooker’s claim was barred by sovereign
immunity, and dismissed the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Hooker filed a timely notice of appeal from the District Court’s order. However,
because he failed to pay the requisite fees or apply to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal, Hooker’s appeal was dismissed pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 3.3 and Third
Circuit LAR Misc. 107.1(a). Immediately thereafter, Hooker filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis and a timely motion to reopen the appeal. See Third Circuit
LAR Misc. 107.2(a). Having reviewed Hooker’s affidavit attesting to his poverty, we
will grant both requests and reopen the appeal.
Nevertheless, because Hooker is proceeding in forma pauperis, we must review his
appeal to determine whether it should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). We dismiss an appeal if it “lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). After a careful review of the record, we
conclude that Hooker’s appeal lacks an arguable basis because, as the District Court
found, his claim against the Postal Service is barred by sovereign immunity.
The Postal Service, as “an independent establishment of the executive branch of
the Government of the United States,” see 39 U.S.C. § 201, enjoys sovereign immunity
absent a specific waiver. See U.S. Postal Service v. Flamingo Indus. (USA), 540 U.S.
736, 744 (2004). In general, the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) waives the Postal
Service’s sovereign immunity when its employees act negligently within the scope of
2
their official duties. See 39 U.S.C. § 409(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). However, the
FTCA qualifies its waiver of sovereign immunity for certain categories of claims, one of
which pertains to postal operations. Specifically, Section 2680(b) provides that the Postal
Service retains immunity for “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent
transmission of letters or postal matter.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). The United States
Supreme Court has recently made clear that in creating this exception, “Congress
intended to retain immunity . . . for injuries arising, directly or consequentially, because
mail either fails to arrive at all or arrives late, in damaged condition, or at the wrong
address.” See Dolan v. United States Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481, 486 (2006).
In the present case, Hooker alleged that the Postal Service negligently allowed his
mail to be forwarded to the wrong address. These allegations fall squarely within the
postal exception to the FTCA. See id., 546 U.S. at 489 (stating that exception bars suits
for personal or financial harms arising from the non-delivery or late delivery of sensitive
materials or information). Therefore, we agree with the District Court that the Postal
Service enjoys sovereign immunity from Hooker’s claim.
Accordingly, we will grant Hooker’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and to
reopen this appeal. We will, however, dismiss the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
.
3