Appeal of FRANK GOMON - P.S. Docket No. POB 98-505

In the Matter of the Petition by	)	December 21, 1998
					)
FRANK GOMON				)
P.O. Box 570031				)
Tarzana, CA  91357-0031			)
					)
					)
					)
Termination of Post Office Box		)
Service for P.O. Box 570031,		)
Tarzana, CA				)	P.S. Docket No. POB 98-505

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Frank Gomon
					P.O. Box 570031
					Tarzana, CA  91357-0031

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Michael W. Mumbach, Esq.
					Civil Practice Section
					United States Postal Service
					475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6235
					Washington, D.C. 20260-1127

INITIAL DECISION

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Gomon on November 2, 1998, after being advised that the Tarzana Postmaster intended to terminate his post office box service because he had failed to provide a physical address on his application for a post office box.

On November 20, 1998, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment, accompanied by a sworn Declaration from the postmaster, Anthony Plante. Petitioner has replied to the motion. The following findings of fact are based on the documents submitted with the motion, as well as all the letters submitted by Mr. Gomon.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner has rented Post Office Box 31 since at least June 1988. On his application, PS Form 1093, dated June 23, 1988, his home address is listed as 5438 Newcastle, Encino, CA 91316.

2. On reviewing post office box records in August 1998, a supervisor at the Tarzana Post Office noted that Petitioner’s Form 1093 contained no signature, and that the address was lined out. The supervisor spoke to Petitioner, asked him to update the form, and gave him a new Form 1093. (Plante Declaration; Plante letter, October 22, 1998). The record contains no information as to when the address was lined out, or why no one had noticed earlier that the form contained no signature.

3. On or about October 20, 1998, Petitioner submitted a new Form 1093, listing his residence as 545 S. San Pedro St., Los Angeles, CA 90013. Accompanying the form was a small card titled, "Union Rescue Mission," with the same San Pedro St. address. Mr. Gomon’s name, social security number and date of birth were handprinted on the card.

4. The Union Rescue Mission provides beds to homeless persons or others in need of shelter.

5. When asked by the postmaster if he actually resided at the Rescue Mission, Mr. Gomon did not say that he did, but only claimed that he could come and go as he pleased.

6. On October 20, 1998, the postmaster informed Mr. Gomon that his box would be closed for failure to provide a verifiable physical address.

7. Section D910.2.4 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) states:

An applicant for post office box service or a current box customer seeking renewal must identify his or her physical address (i.e., an individual’s residence or a business’s location) to the postmaster of the office where service is sought or provided. If the postmaster cannot confirm the physical address, the applicant or box customer must provide proof of the physical address . . ..

8. DMM Section D910.8.2 gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including if a customer "refuses to update information on the box application."

DECISION

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).

The rules quoted above (FOF 7-8) are clear. Rather than comply with those rules, a relatively easy thing to do it would seem, Mr. Gomon has filed a large volume of material, quibbling over many of the actions and statements of the postmaster. He has not, however, disputed the essential facts, i.e., that he has not provided a verifiable physical address on his application for a post office box. Therefore, there are no genuine issues of fact, and summary judgment is appropriate.

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. Michael H. Briggs, P.S. Docket No. POB 96-428 (P.S.D. February 24, 1997); 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). Further, Petitioner is not being deprived of his right to receive mail. He may have mail delivered at a residence address, or he may re-apply for box service by properly completing the application form.

The Postmaster’s determination to close Petitioner’s post office box, based on failure to comply with Section D910.2.4 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the Petition is dismissed.

				Bruce R. Houston
				Chief Administrative Law Judge