September 30, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
SYLVIA FIRESTONE
606 Jasmine Avenue
at
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-2307
Appeal of Termination, P.O. Box 244, Corona Del Mar, CA 92626-0244
P.S. Docket No. POB 03-293
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Sylvia Firestone
606 Jasmine Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-2307
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. Firestone after receiving a written notice from the postmaster at Corona Del Mar, California, dated July 3, 2003, that her post office box service would be terminated.
On August 26, 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 was a sworn declaration from Linda Forness, the Corona Del Mar Postmaster. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion but did not do so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has rented Post Office Box 244 at the Corona Del Mar Post Office for approximately fifteen years. On occasion, Petitioner has caused some disturbance by shouting at post office personnel over various complaints. (Petition; Forness Declaration).
2. In early July 2003, one of the clerks in the Corona Del Mar Post Office, Ms. Pulecio, asked Petitioner to update her application form and offered to assist Petitioner in doing so. At some point in the process, Petitioner told Ms. Pulecio she was dumb, stupid, and that she could go to hell. Postmaster Forness intervened and told Petitioner she would have to leave if she continued to insult the clerks. Petitioner told Ms. Forness she was dumb and could go to hell. Petitioner also raised her arm in a manner that Ms. Forness believed was an attempt to strike her. Ms. Forness closed a dutch door and Petitioner struck the door. (Forness Declaration).
3. Ms. Forness reported the above incident to the police and made the decision to terminate Petitioner’s box service. (Forness Declaration).
4. Section D910.8.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including “if the box customer . . .; conducts himself or herself in a violent, threatening, or abusive manner on postal premises.”
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 Ms. Forness sets forth facts sufficient to resolve this case. As noted above, Petitioner did not reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, although her Petition accuses the postal employees of being abusive to her, she has not countered Ms. Forness’s sworn statement with a sworn statement of her own, or any other evidence. The statements in the Petition are not sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment.[1]
Ms. Forness’s Declaration establishes that Petitioner’s conduct was abusive and/or threatening toward her and Ms. Pulecio, and provides a sufficient basis for the postmaster to terminate post office box service under the DMM provision quoted above.
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). Prohibiting abusive and threatening conduct toward postal employees is certainly a reasonable requirement. See also, 39 C.F.R. §232.1(e), which prohibits causing disturbances on postal property. Further, Petitioner is not being deprived of her right to receive mail. She may have mail delivered to her residence address.
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner at P.O. Box 244, based on Section D910.8.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston