United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL United States District Judge
Renee (Cog) Ferebee brings this pro se action
against Defendant United Statesfor alleged mail tampering, verbal
attacks, and threats by three employees at the United States
Post Office located at 4806 Saint Barnabas Road, Temple
Hills, Maryland. ECF No. 4. Presently pending before the
Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(1), (b)(5), and (b)(6), ECF No. 7, and Defendant's
Motion to Strike, ECF No. 13. No hearing is necessary. Local
Rule 105.6 (D. Md. July 1, 2016). For the following reasons,
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted and
Defendant's Motion to Strike is granted.
Ferebee's second suit against the Temple Hills Post
Office. Ferebee v. Temple Hills Post Office, No.
GJH-14-02451, 2014 WL 5342845, at *1 (D. Md. Oct. 20, 2014),
affd, 590 F.App'x 276 (4th Cir. 2015)
(dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction). Plaintiff alleges that despite
relocating from the Post Office in Suitland, Maryland, to the
Post Office in Temple Hills, Maryland, she continues to
experience the "same abuse." ECF No. 4 at
She claims that employees at the Temple Hills Post Office are
tampering with her mail and subjecting her to verbal attacks
and threats. Id. Plaintiff also states that the Post
Office has intentionally opened her mail. Id.
Plaintiff points to three female employees in particular,
"Tracy, " Tameka Robinson, and Robin Harris, who
she claims harass her when she enters the Post Office to
collect her mail. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff states that
she feels her safety is in jeopardy and endures mental stress
when she enters the Post Office. Id. at 7.
has filed this action against the United States Post Office,
requesting $500 billion dollars for mail tampering, tort,
sabotage, threats, harassment, retaliation, and conspiracy.
See ECF No. 4 at 7. Defendant, by and through the
United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, has
moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), insufficient
service of process under 12(b)(5), and failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted under 12(b)(6). ECF
No. 7. Plaintiff has responded in opposition, ECF No. 9, and
also filed several supplemental filings, ECF Nos. 11 and 12,
which Defendant has moved to strike, ECF No. 13. Having
reviewed the filings and relevant authorities, the Court now
grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Because Plaintiffs
supplemental filings are redundant and do not comply with the
requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P 15(a), Loc. R.
105.2(a), and Loc. R. 103.6(d), Defendant's Motion to
Strike is also granted.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
is well established that before a federal court can decide
the merits of a claim, the claim must invoke the jurisdiction
of the court." Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312,
316 (4th Cir. 2006). Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) governs motions to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
Khoury v. Meserve, 268 F.Supp.2d 600, 606 (D. Md. 2003),
qff'd, 85 F.App'x 960 (4th Cir. 2004). Once
a challenge is made to subject matter jurisdiction, the
Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that subject matter
jurisdiction exists. See Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., a
Div. of Standex Int'l Corp., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th
Cir. 1999); see also Ferdinand-Davenport v.
Children's Guild, 742 F.Supp.2d 772, 777 (D. Md.
Court should grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion "only if the
material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the
moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law."
Evans, 166 F.3d at 647. In ruling on a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the Court "should regard
the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider
evidence outside the pleadings without converting the
proceeding to one for summary judgment."
Ferdinand-Davenport, 742 F.Supp.2d at 777 (quoting
Evans, 166 F.3d at 647); see also Richmond,
Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States,
945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).
Failure to State a Claim
Civ. P. 8(a) provides that "[a] pleading that states a
claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief" Although "no technical forms of pleading
are required, a complaint must 'give the defendant fair
notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the ground upon
which it rests.'" Engle v. United States,
736 F.Supp. 670, 671 (D. Md. 1989), aff'd, 902
F.2d 28 (4th Cir. 1990) (citing Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)). Accordingly, Defendant may
"test the adequacy of a complaint by way of a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Prelich v. Med. Res.,
Inc., 813 F.Supp.2d 654, 660 (D. Md. 2011) (citing
German v. Fox, 267 F.App'x 231, 233 (4th Cir.
2008)). Motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim do
"not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits
of a claim, or the applicability of defenses."
Prelich, 813 F.Supp.2d at 660 (citing Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999).
However, to overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must
allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim
is plausible when "the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
evaluating the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs claims, the
Court accepts factual allegations in the complaint as true
and construes the factual allegations in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiff See Albright v. Oliver,
510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994); Lambeth v. Bd of Comm 'rs
of Davidson Cty., 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, the complaint must contain more than
"legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and
bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement."
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.,
591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). The court should not grant
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief
unless "it is clear that no relief could be granted
under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with
the allegations." GE Inv. Private Placement Partners
II v. Parker, 247 F.3d 543, 548 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing
H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S.