January 24, 1997 In the Matter of the Petition by MICHAEL H. BRIGGS c/o Marin County Jail #0085257 13 Memorial Drive at San Rafael, CA 94903-5207 P.S. Docket No. POB 96-428 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Michael H. Briggs, Pro Se P.O. Box 2401 Mill Valley, CA 94942-2401 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Christine M. Taylor, Esq. Consumer Protection Law United States Postal Service 475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20260-1127
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Briggs on December 18, 1996, appealing the November 27, 1996 decision of the Mill Valley, California Postmaster, Dennis Koplen, to close Post Office Box 2401. The basis for the postmaster’s action was Petitioner’s disruptive behavior in the post office on more than one occasion, including making obscene and threatening statements to postal employees.
On January 2, 1997, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioner was given time to reply, and his reply was received on January 21, 1997. The following Findings of Fact are based on all the material submitted by Petitioner, and the documents attached to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner, Michael Briggs, has been a customer of the Mill Valley Post Office, off and on, for many years, and has been the holder of Post Office Box 2401 since approximately 1992.
2. In April 1994, the postmaster initiated action to close Mr. Briggs’ box, apparently because of his abusive behavior toward postal employees. Mr. Briggs filed a petition, Respondent eventually agreed to withdraw the termination action, and the petition was dismissed on May 26, 1994 (P.S. Docket No. 41/71).
3. Over a period of time leading up to the current incident, Mr. Briggs made a number of complaints about not receiving mail that he was expecting. At times he accused postal employees of stealing his mail. Beginning in August 1996, he filed six PS Forms 4314-C, Consumer Service Card, addressing this problem. There is no evidence in the file that any postal employees were doing anything improper with mail addressed to Petitioner.
4. On November 21, 1996, Mr. Briggs came to the Mill Valley Post Office, apparently to complain once again about his mail. After becoming agitated over not being able to see the postmaster immediately, he was heard by at least two postal employees and one customer to say, "If I had a gun in here I would shoot all their mother fucking heads off right now," or words to that effect. The police were called and Mr. Briggs was arrested outside the post office. He was charged with violation of California Penal Code §422, making a "terrorist threat" to kill or seriously injure another person, and was incarcerated.
5. The post office obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against Petitioner, preventing him from entering the post office or communicating with, or coming near, postal employees. This TRO was eventually dissolved and Petitioner was released from custody on December 27, 1996.
6. Petitioner has had some history of similar conduct. Other incidents of vulgar, abusive, and threatening language toward Mill Valley postal employees were reported on May 12, 1992; March 31, 1994; August 3, 1996; and October 11, 1996. Mill Valley Police reports also record similar incidents, not involving postal employees, on April 30, 1992; August 10, 1994; April 28, 1995; and September 19, 1995.
7. Petitioner’s only response to the Motion for Summary Judgment is a reiteration of his claim that someone at the post office is stealing his mail.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A grant of summary judgment is proper when there are no issues of material fact in dispute and when, as a matter of law, the moving party is entitled to judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact and, if that burden is met, the opposing party must counter with something more than "mere denials or conclusory statements." Mingus Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157-59; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
2. Respondent’s recitation of the facts is well-supported by the documentary evidence attached to the motion. This includes witness statements and police reports. Petitioner has submitted no evidence that raises a material issue of fact. Disposition by summary judgment is appropriate, and the only issue is whether the facts provide a proper basis for closing Petitioner’s post office box.
3. Post office box service is not something any customer has a "right" to. It is a service offered to customers who are willing to comply with the rules and regulations pertaining to the use of post office boxes. William H. Lahan, P.S. Docket No. 24/156 (P.S.D. December 31, 1986); Anthony E. DiBari, P.S. Docket No. 20/21 (P.S.D. January 24, 1985). There is no written rule that requires a boxholder to refrain from verbally abusing and threatening postal employees, or from creating disturbances in the presence of other customers by cursing at people, but there need not be. A postmaster has inherent authority, and probably even a duty, to take reasonable action to protect employees from such abuse, and potential physical harm. ((See Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM), Chapter 8)). Closing Petitioner’s post office box is a legitimate step toward that goal. Petitioner’s course of conduct would appear to provide a sound basis for seeking a court order to bar him from entering the post office, but I find no requirement for that to be done before terminating his box service.
4. Closing the post office box will not deprive Petitioner of the ability to receive mail. In fact, his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment includes a street address, and he makes a reference to "mail that’s supposed to be arriving at my new address, 625 Northern Ave."
5. The postmaster’s decision to close Petitioner’s post office box is sustained. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the Petition is dismissed.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge