In the Matter of the Petition by: JOHN M. NILSSON, 1 Altamount Drive, Orinda, CA 94563-4149 P.S. Docket No. 36/77 8/24/90 Grant, Quentin E., Chief Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: John M. Nilsson, Petitioner, pro seAPPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Geoffrey A. Drucker, Esq., Consumer Protection Division, Law Department, United States Postal Service, Washington, DC 20260-1144
On April 19, 1990, the Postmaster at Petrolia, CA 95559-9998, issued to Petitioner John M. Nilsson his determination to close P. O. Box 131 for Mr. Nilsson's failure to remove accumulated mail in accordance with requests made by the Postmaster. By Petition filed with the Recorder on May 21, 1990, Mr. Nilsson requested that he be allowed to retain the box. Along with its answer to the Petition, the Postal Service filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the Petition on the ground that the undisputed facts show that Mr. Nilsson was in violation of the applicable Postal Service regulations and, consequently, that the Postmaster's determination to close the box was proper. The answer did not raise the issue of timeliness of the filing of the Petition. Presumably the Postal Service is satisfied that filing was timely or has chosen to waive a defense of untimeliness.
In response to my Order dated June 8, 1990, the Postal Service filed certain documents supporting assertions made in the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner received copies of those documents on June 22, 1990.
Petitioner has been given two opportunities to file opposition to the motion the last by Order dated July 6, 1990 (received by him on July 9, 1990) setting a filing deadline of July 27. To date Petitioner has not filed opposition.
The pleadings present no genuine or material issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing.
1. Petitioner John M. Nilsson is the holder of P. O. Box 131 at Petrolia, CA 95558, which he first rented commencing in February, 1989.
2. On April 19, 1990, the Postmaster at Petrolia issued to Mr. Nilsson a determination to terminate (or not to renew) service at P. O. Box 131 because of his failure, despite two requests, to remove accumulated mail therefrom at least once every 30 days. Timely and regular removal of mail was necessary because of the small size of the post office. In fact Mr. Nilsson removed his mail only twice in the first year he rented the box.
3. In the document filed herein as Mr. Nilsson's Petition opposing the Postmaster's determination, Mr. Nilsson asserted that he did not receive at Box 131 an amount of "personal" mail that presented a space problem. However, he acknowledged that third-class mail addressed to the box might have created such a problem and requested that third-class mail not be placed in the box. He stated that he would have his mail removed often enough to prevent any further space problem.
1. Section 951.162(a) of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) requires box customers to remove mail promptly from their boxes and requires them to make specific advance arrangement with the Postmaster if mail is to accumulate for more than 30 days and an overflow condition is probable.
2. Petitioner failed to remove his mail promptly (or to make advance arrangements with the Postmaster in compliance with § 951.162(a)) and in accordance with the request of the Postmaster. He was, therefore, in violation of the regulation.
3. The Postmaster has no authority to assist Petitioner in alleviating the mail accumulation problem by not delivering third-class mail addressed to his box. (39 U.S.C. § 403(c)).
4. Section 951.82 of the DMM authorizes the Postmaster to close a box when the customer has violated any regulation or condition relating to the care or use of the box.
5. The Postmaster's determination to terminate service to, and close, P. O. Box 131 was proper.
6. The Petition is dismissed.