Appeal of CYRUS CARDAN a/k/a CYRUS AZAMI -- P. S. Docket No. POB 98-37

In the Matter of the Petition by   	)  August 27, 1998
       					)
CYRUS CARDAN a/k/a    			)
CYRUS AZAMI     			)
P.O. Box 335      			)
Santa Monica, CA  90406-0335   		) 
       					)
       					)
Termination of Post Office Box Service  )
for P.O. Box 335 at Santa Monica, CA  	)  P. S. Docket No. POB 98-37

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: 		Cyrus Cardan
      					P.O. Box 335
      					Santa Monica, CA  90406-0335

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: 		Christine M. Taylor, Esq.
      					Consumer Protection Law
      					United States Postal Service
      					Washington, DC  20260-1127

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

Petitioner, Cyrus Cardan a/k/a Cyrus Azami, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge granting Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing Petitioner's appeal from the decision of the Santa Monica, CA Postmaster that P.O. Box 335 had been surrendered for nonpayment of rental fees. The Postal Service did not file a response to Petitioner's appeal.

Petitioner contends on appeal that the Administrative Law Judge erred by not concluding that the Postal Service was in default for failing to immediately forward his Petition to the Recorder as required by 39 C.F.R. §958.3(a). Petitioner also contends that Respondent refused to provide him with post office box service and that an appealable determination to that effect was issued by Santa Monica post office officials.

The undisputed facts establish that Petitioner's post office box was surrendered for nonpayment of rent and that Petitioner chose not to reapply for box service because he did not want to provide a verifiable address on the Postal Service box application forms. Under such circumstances, the Postmaster was not required to issue a determination⁽¹⁾ appealable under 39 C.F.R. Part 958,⁽²⁾ and his failure to immediately forward the Petition to the Recorder is not a basis for finding Respondent in default.⁽³⁾ Thus, the Administrative Law Judge properly granted Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Petitioner's Cross-Motion.

Petitioner's remaining arguments that his failure to pay the box rental in a timely manner was excusable and that he should have been permitted to pay a late fee rather than having the box closed,⁽⁴⁾ that requiring a verifiable address on the application violates his right to privacy⁽⁵⁾ and that he has a right to a post office box⁽⁶⁾ are not supported by the record or applicable case law. Moreover, Petitioner has not shown that Respondent's action violates any Postal Service statute or regulation.⁽⁷⁾

Accordingly, Petitioner's appeal is denied and the Administrative Law Judge's Initial Decision is affirmed.⁽⁸⁾

      					James A. Cohen
       					Judicial Officer

1. A postmaster is only required to make a determination when an application is denied for the reasons provided in Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §D910.8.1 or box service is terminated for reasons provided in DMM §D910.8.2.
2. A properly issued determination may be appealed to the Judicial Officer under DMM §D910.8.3 and 39 C.F.R. §958.3.
3. Although as Petitioner argues the delay in forwarding the Petition to the Recorder was caused by Respondent, there is no language in 39 C.F.R. §958.3(a) which requires a finding of default for failure to immediately forward the Petition to the Recorder.
4. Under DMM §D910.8.4 “[a] post office box is deemed surrendered if the box customer . . . refuses or fails to pay the appropriate fees by the due date . . . .”
5. Petitioner's argument that he has a constitutional right to privacy that allows him to obtain a post office box without providing a verifiable address is without merit. Post office boxes are a premium service offered only to those who comply with Postal Service requirements, and the Postal Service has the right to establish reasonable informational requirements (such as Petitioner's address on the application form) in formulating the criteria for box service. Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 39/14 (P.S.D. Jan. 7, 1993).
6. There is no legal right to post office box service. Michael H. Briggs, P.S. Docket No. POB 96-428 (P.S.D. Feb. 24, 1997).
7. Although Petitioner argues that the Postmaster’s failure to immediately forward his Petition to the Recorder was a violation of 39 U.S.C. §101 (Postal Policy) and 18 U.S.C. §1702 (Obstruction of Correspondence), no violation of these provisions by the Postmaster has been shown.
8. Petitioner's alternative request that his post office box remain active until his appeal to a United States District Court is completed is also denied. Petitioner has been given a full opportunity to present his case in this proceeding and he has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits in the court proceeding.