October 24, 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
POSTAL SERVICE DECISION
Petitioner, Sindy D. Thomas, has filed a "Motion to Strike, Set Aside or Squash [sic]" (Motion) an Initial Decision of an Administrative Law Judge, which granted the United States Postal Service's (hereinafter Respondent) Motion for Summary Judgment and upheld the decision of the Burbank, CA Postmaster to deny post office box service to Petitioner. The Initial Decision was delivered to Petitioner's address of record[1] on July 19, 2002, and in the absence of a timely filed appeal became the final agency decision on August 1, 2002. Although Petitioner's Motion was not received until August 26, 2002, the record suggests that Petitioner did not receive the Initial Decision until some time after it was received at her address of record and that there is a substantial likelihood that Petitioner will be successful on the merits. Under such circumstances, there is good cause to reopen the record to consider Petitioner's Motion to determine whether the final decision should be revoked, amended or modified as provided in 39 C.F.R. §958.13.
Petitioner has received mail at P.O. Box 7427 at the Burbank, CA Post Office for approximately 30 years, although the box has not always been in her name.[2] The last PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, on file at the Burbank, CA Post Office is dated January 18, 1982, and lists Petitioner's aunt as the boxholder and the surname Thomas as one of the authorized recipients of mail at the post office box.[3]
In August 2001, a large volume of mail addressed to P.O. Box 7427 was found in a commercial storage unit considered abandoned by Petitioner. The storage facility contacted the Los Angeles Police Department, which in turn contacted the United States Postal Inspection Service.[4] Due to the presence of multiple names on the mail, the Postal Inspection Service opened an investigation into the use of P.O. Box 7427 to assure that the box was not being used for illegal activities.[5] Although it was determined that the box was not being used to conduct illegal activities, it was discovered that the address listed on the January 1982 PS Form 1093 was no longer valid.[6] The Burbank, CA Postmaster placed a hold on the mail and left a notice in P.O. Box 7427 requesting that an updated PS Form 1093 be filed.[7]
After receiving the notice, Petitioner contacted the Burbank, CA Post Office by telephone and was informed that since she was not the boxholder of record, she would have to present proper identification in order to pick up the mail and that she would not be allowed to claim mail addressed to anyone other than herself.[8] In an effort to accommodate Petitioner, the Burbank, CA Postmaster agreed to treat P.O. Box 7427 as abandoned by the boxholder of record and re-rent it to Petitioner as the new boxholder.[9]
In February 2002, Petitioner mailed a new PS Form 1093 to the Burbank, CA Post Office and included a money order to rent P.O. Box 7427.[10] Petitioner requested delivery of "any mail addressed to this box", including mail addressed to four different surnames, and provided a California driver's license and credit card number in the box requesting identification, but did not provide photocopies of the identification.[11] The address listed on the new PS Form 1093 was a homeless shelter at which Petitioner was known to stay.[12]
In an effort to accommodate Petitioner, the Burbank, CA Postmaster sent Petitioner a letter at the shelter she listed as her address in order to set up an appointment for her to come to the Post Office and present her identification, but Petitioner did not attend the meeting or ask that it be rescheduled.[13] The Burbank, CA Postmaster was willing to rent P.O. Box 7427 to Petitioner in accordance with the regulations for "Post Office Box and General Delivery Service for Persons With No Fixed Address"[14] (hereinafter "PB 22060"), however, as Petitioner was not personally known to the Postmaster, the Postmaster would not rent Petitioner a post office box until she presented a proper form of identification.[15] By letter dated March 8, 2002, Petitioner appealed the Burbank, CA Postmaster's refusal to rent her P.O. Box 7427.
In the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, Respondent filed an Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment in which it contended there were no genuine issues of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the Initial Decision, the Administrative Law Judge held that Petitioner had not met the requirements of Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) Sections D910.2.1(a),[16] D910.2.1(d)[17] or D910.2.2[18] for either updating the current application or filing a new application for P.O. Box 7427. As a result, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that there were no material issues of fact in dispute and that summary judgment upholding the Postmaster's decision was appropriate.
In her Motion, Petitioner requests a hearing to investigate the Postal Inspector's involvement with her mail and the disposition or destruction of the mail by the Postal Inspector and employees of the Burbank, CA Post Office. She also asserts that she was given erroneous information by Postal Service employees and that she cannot get a fair decision because the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Judicial Officer are both Postal Service employees. Finally, Petitioner argues that her evidence was ignored and that the Initial Decision should be set-aside.
The issue to be decided in this post office box proceeding is whether the Postal Service properly denied or terminated Petitioner's post office box service.[19] Neither the Postal Inspector's involvement with Petitioner's mail nor the destruction or disposition of the mail relates to the denial or termination of Petitioner's post office box service.[20] Therefore, the Postal Inspector's handling of Petitioner's mail will not be considered in this proceeding. Moreover, investigative hearings of any sort on issues which are unrelated to the denial or termination of post office box service will not be held in a proceeding arising under 39 C.F.R. Part 958.
Petitioner also has not shown that her appeal was mishandled by this office or that she was given erroneous information or otherwise treated unfairly by Postal Service employees. Furthermore, both the Administrative Law Judge and Judicial Officer are independent officials of the Postal Service who are responsible for fairly and impartially deciding claims or disputes within their jurisdiction. While Petitioner may disagree with the conclusions reached by the presiding Administrative Law Judge, she has not shown that she has been unfairly treated in this proceeding.
However, on review of the entire record, it is concluded that there are factual issues entitling Petitioner to a hearing on whether she has met the requirements for post office box service. Under Paragraph 1 of PB 22060, if Petitioner is homeless and known to Postal Service employees at the Burbank, CA Post Office and known as a person with no fixed address, she is entitled to post office box service without presenting additional identification. Whether Petitioner is homeless and known to the employees at the Burbank, CA Post Office and known as a person with no fixed address are material issues of fact on which Petitioner should be permitted to present evidence to determine whether the final decision should be revoked, amended or modified. Before an evidentiary proceeding is initiated, however, the parties should consider whether this matter can be resolved by agreement. Accordingly, this matter is suspended for 60 days during which the parties are to confer and determine whether this matter can be resolved by mutual agreement.
The parties are to file a status report with the Judicial Officer no later than 60 days from the date of receipt of this decision.
James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer
[1] Petitioner, who is unrepresented in this proceeding, provided a homeless shelter as her address of record. Petitioner does not reside at the shelter on a regular basis, but stays there on occasion. Declaration of Postmaster C.K. Wolff (Wolff Decl.) ¶12.
[2] Wolff Decl. ¶8 and Exhibit (Ex.) A; Declaration of Sindy D. Thomas.
[3] Wolff Decl. ¶3, ¶8 and Ex. A. Although Respondent claims, and the Initial Decision finds, that the January 1982 PS Form 1093 is the last update on file for P.O. Box 7427, the form is stamped "Box Closed" with a date of September 6, 1988. While it is clear the box was not closed, without evidence to support Petitioner's claim that she is the current boxholder based on a subsequently submitted PS Form 1093, the January 1982 PS Form 1093 is considered the most recent application for post office box service at P.O. Box 7427.
[4] Wolff Decl. ¶6; Declaration of Postal Inspector J. Robinson (Robinson Decl.) ¶3.
[5] Wolff Decl. ¶6; Robinson Decl. ¶¶3-5.
[6] Wolff Decl. ¶5; Robinson Decl. ¶6.
[7] Wolff Decl. ¶7; Robinson Decl. ¶7.
[8] Wolff Decl. ¶¶9 and 14.
[9] Wolff Decl. ¶10.
[10] Wolff Decl. ¶11 and Ex. B.
[11] Id.
[12] Wolff Decl. ¶12.
[13] Wolff Decl. ¶14, ¶15 and Ex. C. It is unclear if Petitioner received the letter prior to the appointment.
[14] Wolff Decl. Ex. D; Postal Bulletin 22060, p. 89 (Oct. 4, 2001). Postal Bulletin 22060 provides that a homeless person's PS Form 1093 may be approved if
"1. The applicant is personally known to the postmaster or clerk and known as a person with no fixed address…[and] provides[s] 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…[and] provides a verifiable point of contact." Id.
[15] Wolff Decl. ¶¶13 and 17.
[16] Under Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §D910.2.1(a), "[t]he applicant must complete all required items on Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, …[and] refusing to furnish required information may be sufficient reason for denial of the application or discontinuance of service."
[17] DMM §D910.2.1(d) states that "[w]hen any information required on Form 1093 changes, the box customer must update the application on file at the post office."
[18] DMM §D910.2.2 requires that an applicant provide an acceptable, current identification with "sufficient information to confirm that the applicant is who he or she claims to be and [which] must be traceable to the bearer."
[19] 39 C.F.R. §958.2.
[20] See 39 C.F.R. §958.2. See also John Moore and Carolyn Moore, P.S. Docket No. POB 01-105 (P.S.D. Aug. 29, 2001), and cases cited therein.