June 21, 2001

In the Matter of the Petition by

JOAN B. SCHULTZ
P.O. Box 163
Manchester, CA 95459-0163

Notice of Determination to Close
P.O. Box 163, Manchester, CA
95459-0163

P.S. Docket No. POB 00-292

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Joan B. Schultz
P. O. Box 163
Manchester, CA 95459-0163

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Corporate Law
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6112
Washington, DC 20260-1135

Petitioner, Joan B. Schultz, has filed an appeal from an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment and upholding the determination of the Manchester, CA Postmaster to terminate service to P.O. Box 163. Respondent, the United States Postal Service, opposes the appeal.

In the Initial Decision the Administrative Law Judge held that Petitioner had not presented evidence of an acceptable physical address or proof that she actually resides at the disputed address, and, therefore, there were no material issues of fact in dispute and summary judgment upholding the Postmaster’s determination to terminate service to P.O. Box 163 was appropriate. In reaching his decision, the Administrative Law Judge also found that Petitioner had failed to provide identification for other individuals to receive mail at P.O. Box 163 and that Petitioner’s arguments regarding the doctrine of laches and her allegations of mail tampering and unfair treatment and harassment by the Postmaster were without merit.

On appeal, Petitioner renews her arguments that no other individuals are authorized to receive mail at P.O. Box 163 and that she provided sufficient evidence that the address on the application for post office box service is her residence. ¹ Therefore, Petitioner contends that the Administrative Law Judge should not have upheld the Postmaster’s determination to terminate service to her post office box. Respondent argues that the Administrative Law Judge correctly held that Petitioner had not complied with the applicable regulations for post office box service and, as a result, the summary judgment decision should be upheld. Both parties have submitted additional evidence on appeal regarding Petitioner’s right to reside at the disputed address.

As Petitioner has stated to the Postmaster, the Administrative Law Judge and again on appeal, she only claims mail addressed to her name, or a reasonable variation thereof, and no others are authorized to receive mail at her post office box. ² Accordingly, there is no basis for terminating service to Petitioner’s post office box for failure to provide identification information for other recipients.

Furthermore, after a review of the entire record, Petitioner has made sufficient allegations regarding her physical address to present a genuine issue of material fact. Although Petitioner, who is unrepresented in these proceedings, may not have submitted her evidence in the form generally accepted for contesting summary judgment, there is sufficient support in the record for her contention that she provided evidence of a verifiable physical address ³ to withstand a motion for summary judgment and for the Administrative Law Judge to take all available evidence. ⁴ Therefore, Petitioner should be given the opportunity to present whatever additional evidence she may have to establish that the disputed address is her residence and that she has otherwise complied with applicable Postal Service regulations pertaining to post office box service.

Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the presiding Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.

² See Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment, at Ex. C and Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, at 7.

³ By letter dated December 28, 1999, the Postmaster informed Petitioner that her mail would be held until "valid ID can be presented and recorded and the Notice 32-N completed and returned." See Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment, at Ex. C. Petitioner submitted a completed Notice 32-N. Id. at Ex. B. Although Postal Service regulations require box holders to submit an updated Form 1093, the Postmaster did not initially request that form and Petitioner's submission of the Notice 32-N is an unequivocal statement of her residence in response to the Postmaster's request.

⁴ See United States v. Certain Real & Personal Property Belonging to Hayes, 943 F.2d 1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 1991), citing, Marcus v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 1981) ("Even a well supported motion for summary judgment may be denied if…the case would benefit from a full hearing."). See, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

⁵ Such evidence may be taken in an oral hearing (either by telephone or in person) or by submission on the record. See 39 C.F.R. §958.4 & 5.