April 19, 2001
In the Matter of the Petition by
B. RUSSELL CLEMENTS
P.O. Box 62
Kings Mills, OH 45034-0062
Termination of Post Office Box
Service for P.O. Box 62,
Kings Mills, OH 45034-0062
P.S. Docket No. POB 00-467
B. RUSSELL CLEMENTS
P.O. Box 350
Kings Mills, OH 45034-0350
Termination of Post Office Box
Service for P.O.Box 350,
Kings Mills, OH 45034-0350
P.S. Docket No. POB 00-491
B. RUSSELL CLEMENTS
P.O. Box 121
Kings Mills, OH 45034-0121
Appeal of Post Office Box
Closure for P.O. Box 121,
Kings Mills, OH 45034-0121
P.S. Docket No. POB 01-25
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
B. Russell Clements
P.O. Box 62
Kings Mills, OH 45034-0062, et al.
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Civil Practice Section
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6127
Washington, DC 20260-1127
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from three Petitions filed by Mr. Clements after being notified by the Kings Mills, Ohio Postmaster that his post office boxes would be closed for failure to update his box application forms. The cases have been consolidated for decision.
On January 12, January 18, and February 15, 2001, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed Answers to the Petitions, along with Motions for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Attached to the motions were sworn declarations from Ruth Fisher, the Kings Mills Postmaster, and other documents. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motions, and he did so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has resided in Kings Mills, Ohio, and used post office box service there for many years. Ruth Fisher has been the postmaster at Kings Mills since 1985. (Petitions; Fisher Declarations).
2. The Domestic Mail Manual (DMM55) contains the following pertinent provisions in the chapter covering post office box service, under Section D910:1
Application 2.1 To apply for post office box service, the applicant must complete all relevant spaces on Form 1093 and submit it to any postal facility that provides public window service. The facility need not be the one where box service is desired. An incomplete or falsified application is sufficient reason to deny or discontinue service. An application is not approved before the USPS verifies the applicant's identity.
Verification 2.2 At the time of application customers must present two types of valid identification: one must bear a photo and the other must show the applicant's signature and a serial number or other indicia that can be traced to the bearer. Social Security cards are not valid forms of identification. Each person or representative of an organization authorized to receive mail at a specific post office box or caller number must also present two forms of identification.
Proof of Physical Address 2.3 An applicant for post office box service, each person or representative of an organization authorized to receive mail at a specific post office box or caller number, 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 . . ..
Updating 3.2 When any information required to be provided by the box customer on Form 1093 changes, the customer must notify the post office of such changes.
3. 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."
4. The current applications for post office box service (PS Forms 1093) for the three boxes in question contain the following information:
Box 62 - Form signed by B. Russell Clements on August 23, 1999, in the name of himself, Claire Clements, Elizabeth Schenck, and Type-Tiques, at 5398 College Street, Kings Mills, Ohio 45034. A driver's license (number recorded) and a MasterCard were submitted as identification. (Attachment to Fisher Declaration in DCA 00-467, M/SJ Attachment C).
Box 350 - Form signed by Claire Clements on December 4, 1999, in the name of Type-Tiques, at 5398 College Street. A driver's license (number recorded) and a MasterCard were submitted as identification. (Exhibit A to Fisher Declaration in DCA 00-491, M/SJ Attachment B).
Box 121 - Form signed by B. Russell Clements on August 9, 1999, in the name of himself, Claire Clements, Lawrence Saling, and Printing Miscellany, at 5398 College Street, Kings Mills, OH 45034. A driver's license (number recorded-same as for Box 62) and a Visa Card were submitted as identification. (Exhibit A to Fisher Declaration in DCA 01-25, M/SJ Attachment B).
5. On September 27, 2000, Lawrence Saling submitted a change-of-address form (PS Form 3575) to the Kings Mills Post Office, directing that mail addressed to him at P.O. Box 121 be forwarded to another address. (Fisher Declaration in DCA 01-25; Exhibit F to Fisher Declaration).
6. On about August 10, 2000, and again on about September 18, 2000, Postmaster Fisher placed blank PS Forms 1093 in Boxes 62 and 121, with notes to Mr. Clements stating that the new forms needed to be completed in order to update the information on the forms. These notes also stated that post office box service could be terminated if Petitioner refused to update the information. After some exchange of correspondence, in which Petitioner objected to this requirement, Ms. Fisher wrote to Petitioner on October 9, 2000, giving a chronology of events and summarizing what was needed. After further exchanges, Ms. Fisher sent Petitioner two notices on November 7, 2000, one for Box 62 and one for Box 121. She quoted pertinent portions of DMM Sections D910.2.2, D910.2.3 and D910.8.2, and informed Petitioner that these boxes would be closed if he continued to refuse to update the box applications. (Petitions; attachments to Petitions; Fisher Declarations; attachments to Declarations).
7. Although Petitioner was not the applicant on the PS Form 1093 for Box 350, and is not listed as an authorized representative on that form, he does receive mail addressed to him at Box 350. On November 27, 2000, Ms. Fisher placed a note addressed to Petitioner in Box 350, stating that she had received the rental payment, but still needed an updated Form 1093 and two forms of identification from all authorized users. On December 1, 2000, Ms. Fisher placed a notice in Box 350 that the box would be closed for failure to comply with DMM Sections D910.2.2 and D910.2.3. (Fisher Declaration in DCA 00-491; Exhibits D and F to Fisher Declaration).
8. Box 62 - No one has presented to the Kings Mills Post Office any identification or proof of address for Elizabeth Schenck. Petitioner presented sufficient identification for himself, Claire Clements, and the business known as Type-Tiques. Petitioner has not presented any proof of address for himself. (Fisher Declaration in DCA 00-467, ¶¶5, 6 and 8; Petition).
Box 350 - Claire Clements presented sufficient identification for herself and presented proof of address for the business known as Type-Tiques. Petitioner has not presented any proof of address for himself. (Fisher Declaration in DCA 00-491, ¶¶6 and 8; Exhibit B to Fisher Declaration; Petition).
Box 121 - No one has presented to the Kings Mills Post Office any identification or proof of address for Lawrence Saling or for the business known as Printing Miscellany. Petitioner has not presented any proof of address for himself. (Fisher Declaration in DCA 01-25, ¶¶5, 6 and 8; Petition).
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 (1970); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The sworn declarations of the postmaster, Ms. Fisher, and the Petitions themselves, along with other documents filed by both parties set forth undisputed facts sufficient to resolve this case. Although Petitioner has disputed some of the facts asserted by Respondent, he has not presented any evidence to challenge the material facts. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate.
Petitioner argues that he should not be required to fill out new PS Forms 1093 because none of the relevant information has changed since he last submitted the forms. He also argues that he should not be required to submit two forms of personal identification because that requirement, in DMM §D910.2.2, applies only at the time of original application.2 He also asserts that the postmaster knows where he lives, so no proof of address should be necessary. Finally, Petitioner makes a multitude of accusations of harassment and abuse of authority against the postmaster and her superiors, and asks for compensatory and punitive monetary damages and that the postmaster be transferred from Kings Mills. As the Judicial Officer Department has no authority to grant any of these forms of relief, these latter matters will not be addressed.
Respondent's position is that the postmaster was properly following the rules quoted in Finding of Fact #2, and acted within her authority in requiring Petitioner to update the PS Forms 1093 for all three post office boxes.
Whether Ms. Fisher might have chosen to be less rigid in her enforcement of the rules quoted above is not the issue here. DMM §D910.2.3 clearly applies to customers seeking renewal, and requires those customers to provide proof of their physical address if the postmaster cannot confirm the address listed by the customer. Despite Petitioner's claim that Ms. Fisher knows where he lives, there is no persuasive proof of that, and Ms. Fisher has not abused her authority by requiring Petitioner to submit proof of his address. If Petitioner does live at 5398 College Street, submitting something to prove it is not difficult and certainly does not rise to the level of harassment.
Likewise, the postmaster has properly required that the PS Forms 1093 be updated for the other reasons cited. For Box 62, no identification or proof of address has been provided for Elizabeth Schenck, one of the persons listed as an authorized user. For Box 350, Petitioner is not listed on the Form 1093 as an authorized user, but he receives mail there. For Box 121, Lawrence Saling is listed on the Form 1093 but has directed that his mail be forwarded elsewhere, and no identification or proof of address has been submitted for Mr. Saling or for Printing Miscellany. While Petitioner might believe that it should not be necessary to update the forms to clarify these matters, it is the quoted provisions of the DMM, not individual applicants, that determine what is "necessary." The postmaster is following the rules established by her employer, and the record here provides no basis for forcing her to make an exception in this case.
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 information with which to verify a physical address at which a boxholder may be located, and requiring application forms to be kept current, neither of which places any significant burden on a customer, is certainly reasonable.
Respondent's Motions for Summary Judgment are granted, and the postmaster's determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner at P.O. Boxes 62, 350, and 121, based on failure to comply with Sections D910.2.3 and D910.3.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge
2 This point is moot, as Ms. Fisher's Declaration in DCA 00-467 states that Petitioner did present adequate identification. If he presented adequate identification for P.O. Box 62, that identification is deemed to be adequate for the other boxes as well.