(Ps) Walters v. USA

MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION

E.D. Cal.December 5, 2016

1 Defendant United States of America’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney BOBBIE J. MONTOYA Assistant United States Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2775 Attorneys for United States of America IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRI LYNN WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-CV-02818-MCE-AC DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 26 (8th Floor) NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 25, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in the Courtroom of the Honorable Allison Claire, United States Magistrate Judge, in the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Courtroom 26 (8th Floor), Sacramento, California, counsel for defendant United States of America will make the following motion: MOTION Defendant United States of America moves the Court for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This motion is based on the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, along with any declarations and exhibits filed in support thereof, the Court’s files and records in this matter, and any oral argument that may be presented to the Court. //// Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 2 2 Defendant United States of America’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Since plaintiff proceeds with this case pro se, defendant refers her to Eastern District (Cal.) Local Rule 230, which provides, inter alia: Opposition and Non-Opposition. Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party. See [Local Rule] 135. E.D. Cal. R. 230(c). Respectfully submitted, DATED: December 5, 2016 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney /s/ Bobbie J. Montoya By: ___________________________ BOBBIE J. MONTOYA Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for United States of America Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2 1 Defendant United States of America’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney BOBBIE J. MONTOYA Assistant United States Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2775 Attorneys for United States of America IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRI LYNN WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-CV-02818-MCE-AC DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 26 (8th Floor) I. INTRODUCTION In this proceeding, plaintiff alleges that she paid $25.00 for a dress she ordered on the internet, but the United States Postal Service failed to properly deliver it to her. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding for two reasons: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, et seq.; and (2) plaintiff’s action is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) (stating that the FTCA does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for “[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters.”). Thus, the Court should dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 //// 1 Attempts to communicate with plaintiff to try and settle this matter without further litigation have been unsuccessful. Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 6 2 Defendant United States of America’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On October 24, 2016, plaintiff Terri Lynn Walters, in pro per, filed a form complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court, Small Claims Division, naming Robbie Halverson (sued herein as “Rob Halbertson”), a United States Postal Service employee, as the defendant. See ECF No. 1-4, copy of which is filed herewith as Exhibit A. On November 28, 2016, the United States removed the case to district court and substituted the United States as the party defendant in lieu of the named Postal Service employee pursuant to the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2769(d)(2). See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1; Notice of Substitution, ECF No. 1-2. Plaintiff’s claim appears to stem from a dress she ordered on the internet, for which she paid $25.00 and, apparently, never received. Exhibit A at ¶ 3. In her claim, plaintiff seeks $25.00 in damages, Exhibit A at ¶ 3. Plaintiff has not filed an administrative tort claim with the Postal Service in accordance with the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Declaration of Kimberly Herbst (“Herbst Decl.”), filed in conjunction with the instant motion, at ¶¶ 4, 6. III. ARGUMENT A. Legal Standard A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) allows a party to challenge a federal court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. & Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id. (internal citation omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted). The Court must dismiss an action if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). B. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust Her Administrative Remedies The United States is a sovereign, and it may not be sued without its consent. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). The Court’s jurisdiction to hear a suit against the government is Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 6 3 Defendant United States of America’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 defined by the terms of the government’s consent. Id. Any suit against the United States must be brought in compliance with the specific statute under which the government has waived its sovereign immunity. See id. Sovereign immunity bars all suits against the federal government unless it expressly consents to be sued. Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1985). “The Government’s consent to be sued ‘must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign.’” United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 34 (1992) (quoting McMahon v. United States, 342 U.S. 25, 27 (1951)). Absent a statute waiving the government’s sovereign immunity, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff’s claim. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 587-88 (1940) (“Except as Congress has consented there is no jurisdiction in the [courts] to entertain suits against the United States.”). In the FTCA, Congress consented to suits in tort against the United States. Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 518 (9th Cir. 1992). However, the FTCA requires that an aggrieved party file an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency before commencing litigation against the United States: An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Only when the claim has been denied or six months have passed since the administrative claim was filed may a plaintiff bring suit in federal district court on the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). Any failure to comply with the FTCA’s administrative exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional defect. Vacek v. United States Postal Serv., 447 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2006); Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000); Jerves, 966 F.2d at 519; Meridian Int’l Logistics, Inc. v. United States, 939 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1992); Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The timely filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the bringing of a suit under the FTCA, and, as such, should be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.”). //// Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 6 4 Defendant United States of America’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Ninth Circuit has consistently stated that the FTCA’s procedures, including the administrative claim prerequisite, must be strictly construed: “Section 2675(a) establishes explicit prerequisites to the filing of suit against the Government in District Court. It admits of no exceptions. Given the clarity of the statutory language, we cannot enlarge that consent to be sued which the Government, through Congress, has undertaken so carefully to limit.” Vacek, 447 F.3d at 1250; Brady, 211 F.3d at 502; Jerves, 966 F.2d at 521. Thus, “[w]here such a claim is not first presented to the appropriate agency, the district court must dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Goodman v. United States, 298 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2002). Congress enacted § 2675(a) for two reasons: first, “to ease court congestion and avoid unnecessary litigation, while making it possible for the government to expedite the fair settlement of tort claims asserted against the United States.” Shipek v. United States, 752 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting S. Rep. No. 1327, at 2, as reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2515, 2516); see also Jerves, 966 F.2d at 520 (same). Second, “Congress wanted to provide for ‘more fair and equitable treatment of private individuals and claimants when they deal with the Government or are involved in litigation with their Government.’” Id. (citation omitted). Indeed, in McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1980), the Supreme Court observed that [b]ecause the vast majority of claims ultimately were settled before trial, the Department of Justice proposed that Congress amend the FTCA to “requir[e] all claims to be presented to the appropriate agency for consideration and possible settlement before a court action could be instituted. This procedure would make it possible for the claim first to be considered by the agency whose employee's activity allegedly caused the damage. That agency would have the best information concerning the activity which gave rise to the claim. Since it is the one directly concerned, it can be expected that claims which are found to be meritorious can be settled more quickly without the need for filing suit and possible expensive and time-consuming litigation.” McNeil, 508 U.S. at 112 n.7 (quoting S. Rep. No. 1327, at 3, as reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2515, 2517). Plaintiff has not alleged that she filed an administrative tort claim with the Postal Service before filing suit. The Postal Service has no record of an administrative tort claim having been filed by plaintiff. Herbst Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 6. Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust available administrative remedies by first presenting her claim to the Postal Service requires dismissal of her complaint for the Court’s lack of Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 4 of 6 5 Defendant United States of America’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 2675(a); Goodman, 298 F.3d at 1054-55; Vacek, 447 F.3d at 1248; Brady 211 F.3d at 502; Gillespie 629 F.2d at 640. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015), does not affect this analysis. In Wong, the Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), the FTCA’s statute of limitations time bar, is not jurisdictional and is therefore subject to equitable tolling. Wong, 135 S. Ct. at 1638. Wong, however, did not change the above-discussed, long-standing law that 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), the FTCA’s administrative exhaustion requirement, is jurisdictional. See Bhatnagar v. United States, No. 14-cv-00327-MEJ, 2015 WL 4760386, at*5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015) (distinguishes § 2675(a)’s jurisdictional requirement from § 2401(b)’s non-jurisdictional statute of limitations requirement) (citing Wong, 135 S. Ct. at 1627). C. Even if Plaintiff Had Exhausted Her Administrative Remedies, Her Claim is Barred Because the United States Has Not Waived Sovereign Immunity to be Sued for Loss, Miscarriage, or Negligent Transmission of Mail The enactment of the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671, et seq., constitutes a limited waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States in certain cases. Anderson v. United States Postal Serv., 761 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir. 1985). Congress, however, has specified particular claims for which sovereign immunity has not been waived. They are referred to as “exceptions” to the FTCA and are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2680. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b), “the United States retains sovereign immunity for tort claims against it for ‘loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission’ of the mails.” Id. (citations omitted).2 See also Storman v. U.S. Post Office, No. 2:10-CV-3276-GEB-JFM, 2010 WL 5394757, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010). 2 The operation of the exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) is in no way precluded by the “sue and be sued” clause of 39 U.S.C. § 401(1). The FTCA plainly provides that: The authority of any federal agency to sue and be sued in its own name shall not be construed to authorize suits against such federal agency on claims which are cognizable under section 1346(b) . . .. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a); see also Sportique Fashions, Inc. v. Sullivan, 597 F.2d 664, 665 n.2 (9th Cir. 1979) (Exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b) “remains as one of the limitations to consent to suit which Congress specifically retained for the Postal Service” despite passage of “sue and be sued” provision of 39 U.S.C. § 401(1)). Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 5 of 6 6 Defendant United States of America’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff seeks recovery for the loss of a dress she ordered over the internet; apparently it was mailed to her, but she never received it. See Exhibit A at ¶ 3. Plaintiff’s claim falls squarely within the exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity embodied in the FTCA for claims relating to the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of mail matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). As such, plaintiff’s claim is precisely the type of action that Congress sought to bar and, therefore, must be dismissed. See e.g., Sportique Fashions, Inc., 597 F.2d at 665 n.2; Allied Coin Investment, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 673 F. Supp. 982, 987 (9th Cir. 1987); Storman, 2010 WL 5394757, at *1; Johnson v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. CV-F-09-238-LJO-DLB, 2009 WL 529877, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2009); “J & R”/Joseph Liba v. United States, No. 216CV03257ODWFFM, 2016 WL 3912017, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2016) (“The language of section 2680(b) of the Federal Tort Claims Act is clear: the United States is sovereignly immune from suit for claims arising out of lost mail.”); Abdul-Aleem v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. C 03-4006 JL, 2004 WL 422621, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2004). D. Leave to Amend the Complaint Would Be Futile “[Plaintiff] is precluded from pursuing claims arising out of negligently-handled mail, 28 U.S.C. § 2860(b), and [plaintiff] failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Based on the facts alleged, [plaintiff] cannot amend her complaint to demonstrate jurisdiction. Accordingly, amendment would be futile and dismissal with prejudice is warranted.” Johnson, 2009 WL 529877, at *3 (citing Yakama Indian Nation v. State of Wash. Dept. of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1999)). IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, DATED: December 5, 2016 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney /s/ Bobbie J. Montoya By: ___________________________ BOBBIE J. MONTOYA Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorneys for United States of America Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-1 Filed 12/05/16 Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 4 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 5 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 6 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 7 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 8 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 9 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 10 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 11 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 12 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 13 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 14 of 15 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-2 Filed 12/05/16 Page 15 of 15 1 Declaration of Kimberly Herbst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney BOBBIE J. MONTOYA Assistant United States Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2775 Attorneys for United States of America IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRI LYNN WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-CV-02818-MCE-AC DECLARATION OF KIMBERLY HERBST Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom: 26 (8th Floor) I, Kimberly Herbst, make the following declaration in lieu of affidavit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. I am the Supervisor, Tort Claims Examiner/Adjudicator with the United States Postal Service National Tort Center, St. Louis General Law Office. I am over the age of twenty-one and competent to make this Declaration. 2. In that capacity, I have full access to, and regularly utilize, all Postal Service Law Department records that are maintained on each administrative claim submitted for adjudication to the Postal Service pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act, §§ 1346(b) and 2671, et seq. The records of claims maintained by the Law Department are nationwide; consequently, they include tort claims submitted that occur within California. 3. The Law Department maintains an internal database that contains a listing of most claims filed against the United States Postal Service for damage, injury, or death. This database contains Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-3 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 2 2 Declaration of Kimberly Herbst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 information regarding the claim, including the date the claim was received. The only claims that are not listed in this database system are claims for loss that are settled at the local level by a Torts Claims Coordinator. 4. I conducted a search of all Postal Service Law Department records of administrative tort claims submitted for adjudication for evidence of an administrative claim filed by or on behalf of Terri Lynn Walters, the above-named plaintiff. No such claim was discovered. 5. A separate database maintained by the Postal Service tort claim coordinators contains information on and tracks claims submitted for adjudication at the local level. 6. I conducted a search of all Postal Service tort claim coordinator database records of administrative tort claims received at the local level for evidence of an administrative claim filed by or on behalf of Terri Lynn Walters, the above-named plaintiff. No such claim was discovered. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 28 U.S.C. § 1746. DATED: December 5, 2016 /s/ Kimberly Herbst ___________________________ KIMBERLY HERBST Supervisor, Tort Claim Examiner/Adjudicator USPS, National Tort Center 1720 Market Street, Room 2400 St. Louis, MO 63155-9948 Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-3 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2 1 Certificate of Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney BOBBIE J. MONTOYA Assistant United States Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2775 Attorneys for United States of America IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRI LYNN WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Case No. 2:16-CV-02818-MCE-AC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that she is an employee in the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California and is a person of such age and discretion as to be competent to serve papers. That on December 5, 2016, she served a copy of: 1. DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS 2. DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS [INCLUDING EXHIBIT A] 3. DECLARATION OF KIMBERLY HERBST by placing said document(s) in postage paid envelope(s) addressed to the persons listed below, which are the last known addressees, and deposited said envelope(s) in the United States mail in Sacramento, California. //// Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-4 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 2 2 Certificate of Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADDRESSEE(S): TERRI LYNN WALTERS 3920 67th Street Sacramento, CA 95820 /s/ Janet Bain JANET BAIN Case 2:16-cv-02818-MCE-AC Document 4-4 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2