Whenever it snows, we shovel out a little area in front of our mailbox because we heard that if the mail carrier cannot easily get to your mailbox, then he won't deliver your mail. This has always annoyed me, but not so much that I ever thought of suing our mailman. The same cannot be said of the plaintiff in Finnemen v. Pollard, who filed a federal lawsuit against his mail carrier for refusing to deliver his mail because his mailbox was broken.
The facts in Finnemen are a little sketchy, as plaintiff appeared pro se. Plaintiff's mail carrier, Defendant Maurice Pollard, told plaintiff that he would no longer deliver mail to plaintiff because plaintiff's mailbox was broken. When plaintiff went to the post office, defendant, Jamar (no last name), allegedly told defendant, Janine (also no last name), that plaintiff's mail could not be delivered because of the broken mailbox. Plaintiff claims that this was "a lie" but does not contest that his mailbox was broken. Regardless, Plaintiff alleged that defendants tampered with his mail because, when he visited the post office, he was sometimes able to pick up his mail and sometimes there was no mail for him to pick up. Plaintiff sued under Section 1983, alleging that his civil rights had been infringed by the individual defendants.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion was granted. The district court held that plaintiff "fundamentally alleged" who participated in the alleged scheme to tamper with his mail, but not "how it was done or even how it amounts to tampering with his mail." For example, the district court noted that plaintiff failed to allege that his mailbox was in working order and that the re-routing of his mail was therefore part of a scheme, or that any mail was not turned over to him, or that it was delayed in reaching him. The court relied on another mail tampering case (who knew there was more than one) to hold that the allegations in the complaint did not "nudge his claim . . . across the line from conceivable to plausible" as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although not immediately apparent from the complaint, the district court also held that, to the extent plaintiff was alleging discrimination — "that he has been required to pick up his mail where others have not — he failed to state a claim under this theory as well because he had not alleged that he was treated differently than others or that there was not a rational basis for that treatment.