July 17, 2002
In the Matter of the Petition by
SINDY D. THOMAS
340 N. Madison Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90004-3504
Appeal of P.O. Box Closure, P.O. Box 7427, Burbank, CA 91510-7427
P.S. Docket No. POB 02-96
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Sindy D. Thomas
340 N. Madison Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90004-3504
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Corporate Law Section
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. Thomas after receiving verbal notification from the Burbank, California Postmaster that her post office box service would be terminated if she refused to present proper identification along with her PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service.
On April 23, 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 were sworn declarations from the Burbank, California Postmaster, Carla Wolff, and Postal Inspector Jack Robinson. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion, including three extensions of time, and did so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has received mail at P. O. Box 7427 in Burbank for many years. The box application, PS Form 1093, on file at the Burbank Post Office is in the name of Peggy McClosky and signed by Peggy McClosky. It is dated January 18, 1982. The name "Thomas" is listed as an authorized user. (Thomas Declaration; Wolff Declaration; Ex. A to Wolff Declaration).
2. The address listed on the Form 1093 signed by Ms. McClosky is 514 N. Orange, Glendale, CA 91203. This is no longer a residence. (Robinson Declaration; Wolff Declaration; Ex. A to Wolff Declaration).
3. The status of P. O. Box 7427 came to the attention of the Burbank Postmaster in August 2001 when the manager of a storage facility turned in a large volume of mail addressed to many different names at Box 7427 that had been left in a storage unit from which the tenant had been evicted. A Postal Inspection Service investigation uncovered no evidence of fraud or theft involving this mail but in reviewing the Form 1093 for Box 7427 the postmaster determined that it needed to be updated. Notices to that effect were placed in P. O. Box 7427. (Robinson Declaration; Wolff Declaration).
4. Ms. McClosky did not respond to the notices, but Petitioner called the Burbank Post Office several times, stating that she was Ms. McClosky's niece. Postmaster Wolff, and other postal employees who spoke with Petitioner, told her that she could not pick up mail addressed to other people but that she could pick up mail addressed to her at P. O. Box 7427 if she would come to the post office with some identification and update the Form 1093. Petitioner did not do so. (Wolff Declaration).
5. At some point, Ms. Wolff told Petitioner that the post office would treat Box 7427 as having been abandoned by Ms. McClosky and that Petitioner could take over the box if she would fill out a new Form 1093 and provide proper identification. (Wolff Declaration).
6. Petitioner did not come to the post office but sometime thereafter she mailed a Form 1093 to the Burbank Post Office. The form listed the names, "Bailey," "Sund," "Domino," "Thomas," and "McCloxkey" as boxholders and was signed by Petitioner. The listed address was 340 Madison Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90004. No copies of any forms of identification were included, but two numbers, purporting to be a California driver's license number and a master card number, were listed on the form. (Wolff Declaration; Ex. B to Wolff Declaration).
7. The 340 Madison Ave. address is a shelter. Ms. Wolff called the shelter and was told that Petitioner stays there on occasion. On March 12, 2002, Ms. Wolff sent a letter to Petitioner at the shelter address. This letter told Petitioner that her Form 1093 had been received and that Box 7427 would be rented to her if she provided satisfactory identification. The letter requested that Petitioner come to the Burbank Post Office at 11:00 a.m. on March 18, 2002 and bring her identification. She was also told that she would need to bring identification for the other names listed on the Form 1093. Finally, the letter stated that another time could be arranged if the stated time and date was inconvenient for Petitioner. Petitioner did not come to the meeting, nor did she call to reschedule. (Robinson Declaration; Wolff Declaration; Ex. C to Wolff Declaration).
8. Petitioner filed her Petition by placing it in the mail on March 11, 2002. It is not known when, or if, she received Postmaster Wolff's March 12, 2002 letter, prior to receiving it as part of Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment.
9. 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, . . .. Furnishing false information or refusing to furnish required information may be sufficient reason for denial of the application or discontinuance of 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.
§D910.2.2 states:
An application for post office box service may not be approved until the applicant's identity and current permanent physical address where he or she resides or conducts business is verified.
a. [several types of acceptable identification are listed]
b. The identification presented must be current. It must contain sufficient information to confirm that the applicant is who he or she claims to be and must be traceable to the bearer.
§D910.8.1 states:
A postmaster may refuse to approve post office box service if: the applicant submits a falsified or incomplete application for box service; . . ..
§D910.8.2 states:
A postmaster may terminate post office box service, . . ., if the box customer . . . refuses to update information on the box application;
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 declaration of Postmaster Wolff, along with the various other documents in the case file set forth undisputed facts sufficient to resolve this case. Petitioner has disputed some facts and made several complaints about various actions of postal officials, but the material facts here are that the PS Form 1093 on file for Box 7427 is out of date, Petitioner has failed to comply with Postal Service rules for updating that form, and has failed to present the identification that is required to accompany an application for post office box service. Therefore, whether her application is considered a renewal or a new application, she has failed to meet the requirements.
It appears that the postmaster has made a reasonable attempt to accommodate Petitioner in this case. Rather than comply with the rules, a relatively easy thing to do it would seem, Petitioner has chosen to complain about other matters. 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 Petitioner's post office box service at P. O. Box 7427 based on her failure to comply with Sections D910.2.1(a), D910.2.1(d), and D910.2.2 is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge