June 3, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
JANET STONE
P.O. Box 380761
Cambridge, MA 02238-0761
Appeal of Termination of
P.O. Box 380761, Cambridge, MA
P.S. Docket No. POB 02-52
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Janet Stone
P.O. Box 380761
Cambridge, MA
02238-0761
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Corporate Law Department
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6112
Washington, DC
20260-1135
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Ms. Stone after receiving verbal notification from the Manager of Customer Services at the Harvard Square Station of the Cambridge, Massachusetts Post Office sometime after November 30, 2001, that her post office box service would be terminated if she refused to provide a residence address or point of contact on a PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service.
On March 21, 2002, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed an Answer to the Petition, along with 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. Attached to the motion was a sworn declaration from Patricia Obuchowski, Manager of Customer Services. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion, including a three-week extension to May 6, 2002. She has filed no reply. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has rented P.O. Box 380761 at the Cambridge Post Office since 1997. Her PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, dated December 15, 1997, lists a telephone number but no physical address. (Petition; (Obuchowski Declaration, Ex. A).
2. When Petitioner's annual box rent became due on about November 30, 2001, she was asked by a postal employee at the Cambridge Post Office to fill out a new Form 1093 to include an address. She declined to do so. (Petition; Obuchowski Declaration).
3. Petitioner told Ms. Obuchowski that she was homeless. Ms. Obuchowski told Petitioner that Postal Service rules required a verifiable point of contact and that she would accept a letter from a shelter to satisfy that requirement. Petitioner stated that she did not use shelters. Ms. Obuchowski told Petitioner that she could have free general delivery mail service at the Cambridge Square Station, but that her box service would be terminated if she could not provide a physical address or point of contact. Ms. Obuchowski also explained the appeal process and told Petitioner that her box would remain open while an appeal was pending. (Obuchowski Declaration).
4. Section D910.2.1(a) of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) states:
The applicant must complete all required items on Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, . . ..
§D910.2.1(d) states:
When any information required on Form 1093 changes, the box customer must update the application on file at the post office.
§D910.8.2 states:
A postmaster may terminate post office box service, . . ., if the box customer . . . refuses to update information on the box application; . . .. The customer is notified of the postmaster's determination to refuse or terminate service and of the appeal procedures for that determination.
5. The following Postal Bulletin provision is pertinent (PB 22060, p. 89, 10-4-01):[1]
Post Office Box and General Delivery Service for Persons with No Fixed Address
In an effort to assist persons with no fixed address, a homeless person's PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, may be approved under the following conditions:
1. The applicant is personally known to the postmaster or clerk and known as a person with no fixed address. The applicant must provide a verifiable point of contact, for example, place of employment, shelter, charitable institution, or social services office, or
2. An unknown applicant submits one form of proper identification, such as a valid driver's license or other credential showing the applicant's picture and signature. The applicant must provide a verifiable point of contact, for example, place of employment, shelter, charitable institution, or social services office.
* * *
Applicants who cannot meet these conditions may receive indefinite general delivery service as provided in Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) D930. . . ..
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).
As Petitioner did not reply to the motion for summary judgment, the facts stated in Ms. Obuchowski's Declaration are deemed to be accurate. Those facts are not inconsistent with anything Petitioner said in her Petition. Respondent, therefore, has met its burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact. 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).
Petitioner's dispute is not with the facts, but with the Postal Service rules for post office box service as they apply to homeless persons. Petitioner argues that many homeless persons wish to avoid shelters and that the Postal Service rule coerces people to use false addresses or stay at a shelter just long enough to acquire an address. She also argues that the rationale behind the rule, i.e., prevention of mail fraud, is invalid because it is easy for persons bent on fraud to circumvent the "residence" rules. She then proposes what she believes would be a better procedure.
Whatever merit there might be to Petitioner's suggestion is beyond the jurisdiction of this forum. The applicable Postal Service rules are reasonable and I must apply them as they exist. 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).
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the postmaster's determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner at P.O. Box 380761 based on failure to comply with Sections D910.2.1(a) and D910.2.1(d) of the Domestic Mail Manual, and Postal Bulletin 22060, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston
[1] (Obuchowski Declaration, Ex. B). This Postal Bulletin item constitutes an announcement of official Postal Service policy. (39 C.F.R. §111.3(c).