NHCaseLaw.com

Per Curiam. We affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons enumerated in the district court's opinion, see 2007 WL 2011273 (D.N.H. 2007), adding only the following comments. This case raises a single issue involving the so-called "postal-matter exception" to the Federal Tort Claims Act. That exception preserves sovereign immunity for "[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters." 28 U.S.C. § 2680(b). The question is whether the theft or concealment of mail--in this case, political campaign flyers that were diverted by a partisan postal employee to prevent them from being delivered to voters shortly before a municipal election--falls within that provision. The district court deemed the exception applicable and thus dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs, Joseph Laramie and Timothy Hallam, brought separate actions against the above-captioned defendants, their employer, the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (DOC), their supervisor, Bruce Cattell, and co-workers Shawn Stone and Todd Connor. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes on August 14, 2006, since plaintiffs’ writs set forth virtually identical claims against the same defendants. In Count I of their writs, plaintiffs assert a claim against DOC for wrongful termination of their employment. Counts II and III allege, respectively, claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional interference with contractual relations against all the individual defendants. Count IV asserts a claim against defendant Cattell, warden of the New Hampshire State Prison in Concord at the relevant times, for deprivation of plaintiffs’ civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”). Lastly, Count V asserts a claim for the so-called “false light” variety of tortious invasion of privacy, which plaintiff Laramie brings against defendants Stone and Connor and plaintiff Hallem brings against all individual defendants. Presently before the court are the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.