In the Matter of the Petition by ) February 26, 1999 ) FRANK GOMON ) P.O. Box 570031 ) Tarzana, CA 91357-0031 ) ) ) Refusal to Provide Post Office Box ) or Caller Service ) P.S. Docket No. POB 99-13 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Frank Gomon P.O. Box 570031 Tarzana, CA 91357-0031 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph K. Moore, Esq. Consumer Protection Law United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, D.C. 20260-1127
INITIAL DECISION
Mr. Gomon filed a Petition 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. That case was docketed as P.S. Docket No. POB 98-505. On December 21, 1998, an Initial Decision was issued, granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision held that there was no dispute over the fact that Mr. Gomon had been asked by the Tarzana Post Office to update his post office box application form by providing a verifiable physical address, and that he had failed to do so.
Mr. Gomon appealed that decision to the Judicial Officer of the United States Postal Service. On February 18, 1999, a Postal Service Decision was issued, affirming the Initial Decision.
In the meantime, Mr. Gomon submitted a new application for a post office box at the Tarzana Post Office and, when he received no response from the postmaster to his several demands, he filed a second Petition, treating the postmaster’s silence as a refusal to rent him a box. Respondent, the United States Postal Service, again filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there are no new issues raised by this second Petition, and that this case would be rendered moot by the Postal Service Decision in POB 98-505. In the alternative, Respondent moved that this case be joined with P.S. Docket No. POB 98-505, which was then before the Judicial Officer on Petitioner’s appeal.
DECISION
As a Postal Service Decision has been issued in POB 98-505, it is no longer appropriate to join the two cases. The decision in that first case does control this one, however. Petitioner has submitted no significant new evidence to support this second Petition. His new application for a post office box lists the same address, the Union Rescue Mission, as was involved in the first case, and he has offered nothing to verify that this is his physical residence, as is required by the regulation.1/ He has submitted a copy of an envelope addressed to him at that address, but this does not prove that he actually resides there. He also continues his recitation of what he perceives to be many improper actions by the Tarzana Postmaster, but the Petition in this case presents no relevant new issues. Petitioner asserts that, in exercising his personal "freedom" he is not required to live in the same place everyday, and that he has a right to move from place to place as he wishes. That is true, but it is also true that no one has a "right" to a post office box, and that the Postal Service has a right to establish reasonable rules for the use of post office boxes.2/ One of those rules is that a box renter provide, on the application form, a verifiable physical residence.
The postmaster’s determination not to rent Petitioner a second 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