In the Matter of the Petition by MAX KOENIG P.O. Box 338 Biggs, CA 95917-0338 Closure of Post Office Box 225 Oroville, CA 95965-0225 P.S. Docket No. 20/115 October 21, 1985 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Max Koenig P. O. Box 338 Biggs, CA 95917-0338APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq. Consumer Protection Division Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1112
Mason, Randolph D.
Mr. Max Koenig ("Petitioner") submitted a petition dated February 5, 1985, protesting the alleged closure of Post Office Box 225 at Oroville, California 95965. He stated that his box would not open on January 12 and January 16, 1985. He concluded that his box had been improperly "closed" without the requisite written determination by the Postmaster, and requested that the "closure" be rescinded. Upon receipt of this petition, the Postmaster at Oroville immediately contacted Mr. Koenig and explained that the box had been "plugged by mistake not closed." The plug was immediately removed from his box upon receipt of the petition by the Oroville Postmaster. The latter never intended to close the post office box in question.
In a timely filed Answer and Motion to Dismiss, Respondent argued that the Petition should be dismissed as moot because the box was plugged by mistake rather than closed and that the plug was immediately removed when the matter came to the Postmaster's attention. The petitioner then stipulated that the box had been "reopened" but continued to insist that the box had previously been "closed." Petitioner waived the right to an oral hearing and answer pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 958.5.
After consideration of the entire record, it is concluded that the Petition should be dismissed for two reasons. First, the Administrative Law Judge lacks jurisdiction to decide the instant case. In this regard, Administrative Law Judges preside over "proceedings as provided by Postal Service regulations." 39 C.F.R. § 224.1(c)(4)(iv)(A). The regulations do not provide for a proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge with respect to the termination of a post office box unless the "Postmaster has issued a Determination . . . terminating the box." 39 C.F.R. § 958.2. It is clear that no such Determination has been issued in the instant case. In fact, the Postmaster did not even intend to close the box in question. Since no other regulations provide for a proceeding in this type of case, the instant petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Second, the Petition should be dismissed as moot. In this regard, Petitioner has requested the Administrative Law Judge to reverse the alleged "determination" of the Postmaster. As previously mentioned, no such determination was made and the Postmaster unplugged the box as soon as his mistake was brought to his attention. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge would be unable to provide the requested remedy even if he had jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant Petition must also be dismissed as moot.
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition in the instant case is hereby dismissed.