Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ferebee v. United States

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

July 24, 2017



          GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Renee (Cog) Ferebee brings this pro se action against Defendant United States[1]for 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.[2]

         I. BACKGROUND

         This is 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). [3]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 6.[4] 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.

         Plaintiff 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.


         A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

         "It 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. 2010).

         The 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).

         B. Failure to State a Claim

         Fed. R. 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." Id.

         In 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., 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. 229, 249-50)(1989)).[5]

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.