February 28, 2003
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
On July 17, 2002, an Administrative Law Judge issued an Initial Decision, upholding the postmaster’s determination to terminate service to P.O. Box 7427, Burbank, CA. In the absence of a timely filed appeal, the Initial Decision became the final agency decision on August 1, 2002. On August 26, 2002, Petitioner, Sindy D. Thomas, filed a “Motion to Strike, Set Aside or Squash [sic]” (Motion) the Initial Decision. Petitioner blamed the untimeliness of her Motion on a delay in receiving her mail at her address of record. The Motion was considered a motion to revoke, amend or modify as provided in 39 C.F.R. §958.13 and, in a Postal Service Decision issued on October 24, 2002, it was concluded that Petitioner should be permitted to present evidence to determine whether the final agency decision should be revoked, amended or modified. However, before initiating an evidentiary hearing, further proceedings were suspended for 60 days to allow the parties an opportunity to confer and determine whether the matter could be resolved by mutual agreement.
On December 27, 2002, Respondent filed a status report in which it advised that it had been unable to contact Petitioner and that P.O. Box 7427 had been rented to another customer after the Initial Decision had become final. Thereafter, several attempts were made to reach Petitioner at the telephone number she provided so that a telephone conference could be held with the parties to discuss the further processing of the proceeding. The attempts to reach Petitioner were unsuccessful and an order was issued on January 14, 2003, directing Petitioner to contact the Judicial Office no later than February 14, 2003, if she still desired post office box service.
On January 28, 2003, Petitioner contacted the Judicial Office by telephone, but refused to provide a telephone number at which she could be reached for a telephone conference with Respondent’s counsel and the Judicial Officer. On February 13, 2003, Petitioner filed a reply to the January 14, 2003 Order in which she claims she did not receive the October 24, 2002 Postal Service Decision[1] or Respondent’s status report[2] and asks for copies of those documents and proof the documents were previously served on her.[3] Petitioner further denies that attempts were made to contact her by telephone and asks for proof that such efforts were made. Petitioner also complains about the treatment she has received from Respondent’s counsel and the Judicial Office and that she is not receiving all of her mail even though she filed a change of address form. In addition, Petitioner continues to seek an investigation into the destruction of her mail and the closure of her post office box. Finally, Petitioner asks that service be restored to P.O. Box 7427 and that she be compensated for her losses and the stress she has experienced due to the termination of her post office box service.
DECISION
Despite Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary, service to her address of record has been obtained promptly throughout this proceeding.[4] Although Petitioner did not personally sign the certified receipts, it is her responsibility as a litigant to retrieve her mail in a timely manner when it is sent to the address she provided for
service of process. Her failure to do so does not excuse her untimely filings.[5] When Petitioner failed to file a timely appeal of the Initial Decision, that decision became final in accordance with the rules of practice[6] and the Postal Service properly rented P.O. Box 7427 at the Burbank, CA Post Office to another customer. As Postal Service regulations do not provide for the return of a post office box to a former boxholder after the box has been rented to another customer,[7] and the only remedial action Petitioner is seeking is restoration of service to P.O. Box 7427, no further evidence is necessary to rule on Petitioner’s Motion.
The only issue to be determined in a post office box proceeding is whether the Postal Service properly denied or terminated Petitioner’s post office box service,[8] and none of Petitioner’s additional arguments relate to that issue or are otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Officer to consider. Neither the destruction of Petitioner’s mail nor the handling of her mail following the closure of P.O. Box 7427 relates to the denial or termination of Petitioner’s post office box service. Furthermore, the Judicial Officer has no authority to order compensation for Petitioner’s loss or to award her damages for any stress she may have experienced. In addition, the Judicial Officer does not conduct investigative hearings unrelated to the denial or termination of post office box service.[9] Finally, Petitioner has made no persuasive showing that she was unfairly treated in this proceeding.
Accordingly, there is no basis to revoke, amend or modify the previously issued final order, and Petitioner’s “Motion to Strike, Set Aside or Squash [sic]” is denied.
James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer
[1] The Postal Service Decision was sent by certified mail (#7002-0460-0000-0812-2280) to Petitioner’s address of record on October 24, 2002, and was received and signed for on October 28, 2002.
[2] A copy of the status report was sent by certified mail (#7002-0460-0000-0811-9969) to Petitioner’s address of record on December 27, 2002, and was received and signed for on January 2, 2003.
[3] Copies of the two documents, along with copies of the two signed certified receipts, are being furnished to Petitioner with this decision.
[4] See infra notes 1 and 2.
[5] See, e.g., James D. Mample and Dorris C. Mample, P.S. Docket No. 40/75 (P.S.D. Aug. 13, 1993). See also Christian Duru and Femmy Akene, P.S. Docket No. MD 00-490 (P.S.D. March 21, 2001) and Chad Sebastian Arrington d/b/a Liberty Financial Credit Services, Inc., P.S. Docket No. FR 97-280 (P.S.D. Oct. 3, 1997).
[7] William Kuntz, III, P.S. Docket No. 40/55 (P.S.D. April 26, 1993); Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 37/120 (P.S.D. Sept. 12, 1991).
[8] 39 C.F.R. §958.2. See Jacqueline Mills, P.S. Docket No. POB 02-56 (P.S.D. Sept. 11, 2002); George J. Devos, P.S. Docket No. POB 01-111 (P.S.D. Sept. 7, 2001); and John Moore and Carolyn Moore, P.S. Docket No. POB 01-105 (P.S.D. Aug. 29, 2001), and cases cited therein.
[9] See October 24, 2002 Postal Service Decision, p. 6.