In the Matter of the Petition by ) December 14, 1999 ) LOUIS R. DE MAURO ) P.O. Box 1628 ) ) ) ) ) Termination of Post Office Box ) Service for P.O. Box 1628, ) Burlington, NJ 08016-7228 ) P.S. Docket No. POB 99-414 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Louis R. De Mauro P.O. Box 1628 Burlington, NJ 08016-7228 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Janessa L. Grady, Esq. Civil Practice Section United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6347 Washington, D.C. 20260-1127
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. De Mauro after being informed by a letter from the Burlington Postmaster, dated September 13, 1999, that his post office box service was being terminated because he had failed to provide proof of a physical address with his post office box application form. On October 13, 1999, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Petitioner has replied to the motion with a large volume of material in which he accuses the Burlington, New Jersey Postmaster and a Postal Service attorney of various unlawful, frivolous, negligent, willful, malicious, and unconstitutional acts, but he submitted nothing to contest the essential facts alleged by Respondent.(1) The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner, Louis De Mauro, has rented post office box 1628 at the Burlington, New Jersey Post Office for several years. On June 30, 1999, a notice was placed in the box, informing Mr. De Mauro that "Postal regulations require that we maintain up to date accurate records of all box holders." The notice said that the post office did not have a current street address or telephone number for Mr. De Mauro's physical address. Attached to the notice was a PS Form 1093, which he should use to update the required information. He was instructed to return the form along with some appropriate document(s) to confirm his physical address. (PS Ex. 1).(2)
2. On July 20, 1999, Petitioner returned the Form 1093, listing his residence as 22 Fountain Blvd., Burlington, New Jersey. Because no supporting identification was presented, and because the business names used by Petitioner were not listed, the postmaster advised Petitioner that the form was incomplete. (PS Ex. 1 and 2a).
3. On July 30, 1999, Petitioner resubmitted the Form 1093, along with copies of two change-of-address letters he had apparently sent to the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles and the Federal Aviation Administration, asking them to change his address from 26 Fountain Blvd. to 22 Fountain Blvd. (PS Ex. 2b and 2c).
4. On August 5, 1999, the postmaster received a handwritten note from Margaret Michael, 22 Fountain Blvd., Burlington, New Jersey, stating that Louis De Mauro did not live there and that she did not wish any mail addressed to him to be delivered there. (PS Ex 3). The postmaster discussed this matter with a Postal Inspector and, on August 17, 1999, issued Petitioner a notice that his box service would be terminated because of failure to present proof of his physical residence. (PS Ex. 5a).
5. On August 19, 1999, apparently in response to a telephone call from Petitioner, the postmaster advised Petitioner that providing a telephone number was not sufficient - that a physical address was required. He gave Petitioner an additional ten days to comply. (Chronology prepared by Michael Herbert, September 21, 1999, forwarded with Petition).
6. On August 25, 1999, Petitioner submitted another Form 1093, listing 205 Nassau Street, Princeton, New Jersey as his address. The postmaster sent a request for verification to the Princeton Postmaster and was informed that the address was an answering service, and that the mail carrier reported that Petitioner was "unknown" at that address. (PS Ex. 6).
7. On September 9, 1999, and as amended on September 13, 1999, the Burlington Postmaster issued Petitioner a final notice that his box service was terminated for failure to provide proof of a physical address as required by Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §D910.2.3. (PS Ex. 7, 8a and 8b).
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 letters and other documents filed by Respondent set forth facts pertinent to resolution of this case. Although Petitioner has filed several contentious letters and memoranda, he has not seriously challenged the essential facts. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate.
Section D910.2.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM Issue 54) 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 . . ..
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."
There is no evidence to dispute the essential facts that Petitioner does not physically reside at either of the addresses he listed on the PS Forms 1093, and that he presented nothing with which the postmaster could verify any physical address. The issue is not whether he, or some member of his family, might be entitled to receive mail at any particular address. The issue is over compliance with the requirement to provide the post office with a verifiable physical address. The fact that Petitioner may have actually resided at one of the listed addresses at some time in the past, or the fact that the postmaster, or other post office personnel, may have known Petitioner for a number of years, does not relieve him of the requirement to comply with the prescribed rules. Nor do these facts require, or permit, the postmaster to waive the prescribed rules.
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. R. C. Tanner, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-67 (P.S.D. May 15, 1998); 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). The Postal Service has the right to establish reasonable requirements and rules for the use of post office boxes. Michael D. Tomsyck, P.S. Docket No. POB 98-168 (P.S.D. September 22, 1998). Requiring some form of official identification with which to verify a physical address at which a boxholder may be located is certainly reasonable.
Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the postmaster's determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner, based on failure to comply with Section D910.2.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge