Breaux v. US Postal Service

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 99-40582
Summary Calendar
JOSEPH N. BREAUX, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
February 14, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph N. Breaux ("Breaux") appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his class action lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm for the
alternate reason that Breaux lacked standing to bring this lawsuit.
See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway, 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.
1981).
Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal

-- 1 of 3 --

2
courts’ jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies." U.S. Const.
art. III, § 2. To satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff
must demonstrate: (1) an injury in fact; (2) traceable to the
defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) likely to be redressed by
a favorable decision of this Court. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The Supreme Court has
described the injury requirement for standing as an "injury in
fact" that is "distinct and palpable" and not "abstract,"
"conjectural," or "hypothetical." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737,
751 (1984).
Because Breaux did not allege that any of his mail was
untimely delivered by Express Mail, he has not alleged an injury in
fact caused by his use of the Express Mail service. Accordingly,
Breaux lacked standing to bring this class action lawsuit. Neither
do we find any merit in Breaux’s argument that his lawsuit is not
about the failure of the Postal Service to timely deliver his mail,
but rather "the failure of the USPS to notify a postal patron when
[] a claim [for a refund] accrues or becomes applicable, and to
obtain restitution on a statically [sic] valid basis." Even
assuming the Postal Service had the duty to notify postal patrons
of late deliveries, which is not supported by the face of the
Express Mail contract, Breaux did not show that the Postal Service
breached this duty to him personally such that he suffered an
actual injury from his use of the Express Mail service. The

-- 2 of 3 --

3
district court’s dismissal of this action is therefore AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --