In the Matter of the Petition by ) December 2, 1993 ) EDWIN G. BLAKE ) 146 Lost Acres Road ) North Granby, CT 06060-1313 ) ) Denial of Application to Rent P. O. ) Box 3086, Kennebunkport, ME ) P. S. Docket No. 41/7 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Edwin G. Blake, Pro Se 146 Lost Acres Road North Granby, CT 06060-1313 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jeannine H. Walter, Esq. Consumer Protection Law Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, DC 20260-1147
On November 4, 1993, Respondent Postal Service filed a Motion To Dismiss this Petition on the grounds that the undersigned lacks jurisdiction to decide the case and because it is not yet ripe for review. Respondent further requested that the scheduled oral hearing be canceled. On November 5, 1993, Petitioner filed a waiver of oral hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 958.5 this decision is based on the Petition, Respondent's Motion To Dismiss, and Petitioner's answer to the motion which he filed on November 29, 1993, and the addendum thereto filed on December 2, 1993.
1. On September 11, 1993, Edwin G. Blake ( "Petitioner") filed an application through the Hartford, Connecticut Post Office for post office box service in Kennebunkport, Maine, listing "Idlease Guest Resort" and "Idlease" as the boxholder names. The application states that Edwin G. Blake is the general manager of the businesses for which post office box service is sought. The space for the box number is filled in with the designation 3086. A U.S. Postal Money Order in the amount of $18.50 was submitted with the application. The face of the money order reflects the notation "Box 3086 Kennebunkport only". (Emphasis in original).
2. By letter dated September 24, 1993, the Kennebunkport Postmaster, Lawrence S. Lamson Jr., wrote to Petitioner stating that the Postal Service had determined that all mail addressed to P.O. Box 3086 should be handled as "dispute mail" and held until a final disposition was made of the mail dispute concerning mail addressed to that box. The postmaster further stated: "It is my decision to keep PO Box 3086 vacant until such time as the dispute is settled". In his letter, the postmaster returned Petitioner's post office box application and money order.
1. The Rules of Practice concerning refusal to provide post office box service state that "[a]ny applicant or customer who receives a postmaster's Determination may oppose it by filing...a written Petition stating his reasons for opposing the Determination." 39 C.F.R. § 958.3. The Domestic Mail Manual ("DMM") specifies what constitutes a Determination and the circumstances in which the postmaster must issue a Determination. DMM Transition Book § 951.8.
2. In this case the postmaster did not issue a Determination as that term is used in the DMM and the Rules of Practice Part 958. Rather, the postmaster decided to keep P.O. Box 3086 vacant until the Judicial Officer issues a final decision in MD-197, the mail dispute proceeding involving mail addressed to that box.1/ Under these circumstances, the postmaster was not required to issue a Determination and the undersigned lacks jurisdiction to review the interim decision of the postmaster. See, William Kuntz, III, P.S. Docket No. 40/55, sl.op. at 2, n.1 ( April 26, 1993); Max Koening, P.S. Docket No. 20/115, sl. op. at 2 ( I.D. October 21, 1985).
3. I conclude that the Petition filed herein fails to raise any issue over which the undersigned has jurisdiction. In light of this conclusion, I also find it unnecessary to address Respondent's second argument in support of its motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Respondent's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is hereby granted and the Petition is dismissed without prejudice.2/
Judith A. Dowd Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge