January 28, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
EVERETT J. MILLER
45 Main Street
at
Cherry Valley, NY 13320-3727
P.S. Docket No. POB 02-428
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Everett J. Miller
45 Main Street
Cherry Valley, NY 13320-3727
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
United States Postal Service
Civil Practice Section
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6112
Washington, DC 20260-1135
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Miller to challenge a decision by the postmaster at Cherry Valley, New York, involving the location of Petitioner’s curbside mailbox.
On November 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 Marie Saltys, the Cherry Valley Postmaster. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion and did so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has a post office box at the Cherry Valley Post Office. The postmaster has taken no action to terminate Petitioner’s post office box service and has no present intention to do so. (Saltys Declaration).
2. Sometime prior to August 2002, Petitioner requested permission to erect a curbside mailbox near his residence. This was denied because postal officials deemed the location to be unsafe for the mail carrier. The postmaster offered Petitioner a different location. Petitioner protested because this location was some distance from his residence and not convenient for Petitioner and his wife. (Petition; Saltys Declaration).
DECISION
Petitioner’s reply to the motion for summary judgment disputes some of the facts asserted by Respondent, but he does not dispute the fact that the postmaster has taken no action to terminate his post office box service at the Cherry Valley Post Office.
The scope of the rules in 39 C.F.R. Part 958 is limited to “cases in which a postmaster has issued a Determination denying an application for post office box or caller service, or terminating the box or caller service being provided to a customer.”[1] The dispute in this case is over something entirely different. Petitioner’s curbside mailbox is not a “post office box.” The Judicial Officer Department has no jurisdiction over decisions involving the location of curbside mailboxes.
Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate, but the Petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge