August 29, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
MICHAEL STERBA
P.O. Box 324
Meridian, CA 95957-0324
Determination to Terminate Post Office Box Service for P.O. Box 324, Meridian, CA 95957-0324
P.S. Docket No. POB 03-257
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Michael Sterba
P.O. Box 324
Meridian, CA 95957-0324
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 Mr. Sterba after he received a written notice dated April 17, 2003, from the postmaster at Meridian, California, informing him that his post office box service was being terminated because the box was being used primarily for having mail forwarded to other addresses.
On July 17, 2003, 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 copies of several mail forwarding forms that have been submitted by Petitioner to the Meridian Post Office. The Motion for Summary Judgment and an Order dated July 18, 2003, giving Petitioner an opportunity to reply, were sent to Petitioner by certified mail. These documents, as were other documents sent to Petitioner in connection with this case, were returned unclaimed. The motion and the Order were then sent to Petitioner by regular mail. Petitioner has filed no reply. It is a Petitioner’s obligation to receive, and accept, official mail that pertains to an administrative action such as this. Failure to do so does not excuse his failure to file a timely reply.[1] The following findings of fact are based on the Petition and the documents filed by Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has rented Post Office Box 324 at the Meridian Post Office since January 2001 (Postmaster Callaway’s May 19, 2003 forwarding letter).
2. Beginning on June 11, 2001, Petitioner has submitted twelve PS Forms 3575, Mail Forwarding Change of Address Form, directing that mail be forwarded to various addresses during different time periods. For the period from June 11, 2001 through April 15, 2003, these forwarding orders covered over 80% of the calendar days. Since January 1, 2002, they covered more than 94% of the calendar days. During this period, Petitioner has not picked up any mail at the Meridian Post Office. (Postmaster Callaway’s May 19, 2003 forwarding letter; M/SJ, Exs. 1-6).
3. Rules governing post office box service are found in Section D910 of the Domestic Mail Manual. Provisions pertinent here are:
D910.3.6 Forwarding
A post office box may not be used when the primary purpose
is to have the USPS forward or transfer mail to another
address free of charge.
D910.8.2 Termination
A postmaster may terminate post office box service, . . ., if the box customer . . . violates any standard on the care or use of the box; . . . The customer is notified of the postmaster's determination to refuse or terminate service and of the appeal procedures for that determination.
4. On April 17, 2003, Postmaster Callaway wrote to Petitioner, informing him of her determination to terminate service (M/SJ, Ex. 7).
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 twelve PS Forms 3575 attached to Respondent’s Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment set forth undisputed facts sufficient to resolve this case. Nothing in the Petition itself disputes the facts found in Finding #2. Petitioner argues that he is a construction worker who lives a “somewhat transient existence,” and that he should be allowed to maintain a post office box as a “permanent point of contact” with people who wish to communicate with him.
Petitioner’s position may not seem to be unreasonable, but the rule stated in DMM §D910.3.6 is clear, and the record demonstrates that Petitioner has been using his post office box primarily for mail forwarding. 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). Petitioner’s contentions as to what services the Postal Service should provide, or what postal policies should be are beyond the jurisdiction of this forum. Review by an Administrative Law Judge is limited to determining whether the Postal Service has properly applied the rules and whether an applicant or a current box customer has complied with applicable requirements.
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 324, based on Sections D910.3.6, and D910.8.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston
[1] Sindy D. Thomas, P. S. Docket No. POB 02-96 (P.S.D. February 28, 2003); Christian Duru and Femmy Akene, P. S. Docket No. MD 00-490 (P.S.D. March 21, 2001).