June 23, 2004
In the Matter of the Petition by
VICTORIA NELSON
19425 Soledad Canyon Road, B-42 2
Santa Clarita, CA 91351-2627
Determination to Terminate Post Office Box Service for Post Office Box 67, White Bird, ID 83554-0067
P.S. Docket No. POB 04-48
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Victoria Nelson
19425 Soledad Canyon Road, B-42 2
Santa Clarita, CA 91351-2627
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine Green
Office of the General Counsel
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. Nelson after she received a written notice from Nancy Gresham, the White Bird, Idaho Postmaster, informing Petitioner that her post office box service would be terminated because Petitioner had failed to update the information on her post office box application.[1]
On May 14, 2004, 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 Ms. Gresham and some supporting documents. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion but did not do so. As Petitioner did not reply, the following findings of fact are based on the documents submitted in support of Respondent’s motion and the original documents forwarded by the Spokane District Office.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner has held Post Office Box 67 in White Bird, Idaho since June 6, 1988. On her application, PS Form 1093, her physical address was listed as “Nat. Basin Rd.” in White Bird. Above this entry is a note, “lives in Cal.” It is not clear who wrote that note, or when. (Petition; Ex. A to Gresham Declaration, ¶ 4).
2. It is unclear whether Petitioner ever paid a rental fee for the box, but for some time prior to November 2003, the previous postmaster had permitted Petitioner to use the box rent-free, apparently because there was no rural delivery at Petitioner’s Idaho address. (Petition; Gresham Declaration, ¶ 5).
3. After Ms. Gresham became postmaster in White Bird in October 2003, she reviewed the status of post office boxes and noted that Petitioner had not been paying rent. Because Petitioner would not have been entitled to a no-fee box if she did not live in Idaho, the postmaster sent a rent due notice to Petitioner at her California address. (Gresham Declaration, ¶¶ 3-4).
4. Petitioner called the postmaster to inquire about the fee requirement and the postmaster told her she would need to complete an updated PS Form 1093 to provide a current physical address. (Gresham Declaration, ¶¶ 5-7).
5. In late November 2003, Petitioner’s son came to the White Bird Post Office and left money, along with some Priority Mail envelopes and a California address so that mail could be forwarded to Petitioner at that address. The postmaster sent a package of mail to Petitioner at the California address and included a new PS Form 1093 and a postage paid return envelope so that Petitioner could return the completed form. (Gresham Declaration, ¶ 11).
6. By late February 2004, Petitioner not having returned a completed Form 1093, the Consumer Affairs office prepared a termination notice for the postmaster to send to Petitioner. The notice was dated February 26, 2004, and was mailed to Petitioner by the postmaster on March 8, 2004. The notice informed Petitioner that her box service would be terminated under the provisions of Domestic Mail Manual Section D910.8.2 because she had not updated her application to provide a current physical address. (Gresham Declaration, ¶ 13; Ex. B to Declaration).
7. On March 25, 2004, Petitioner filled out a PS Form 1093 at the Silverado, California Post Office and sent it to the White Bird Post Office, along with a handwritten note from the Silverado Postmaster stating that she had verified the identification information submitted by Petitioner. On this Form 1093, Petitioner listed her address as P.O. Box 67 in White Bird. (Gresham Declaration, ¶ 15; Ex. C to Declaration).
8. Section D910.2.1(a) of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM Issue 58) states:
The applicant must complete all required items on Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service, . . .. Furnishing false information or refusing to furnish required information may be sufficient reason for denial of the application or discontinuance of service.
§D910.2.1(d) states:
When any information required on Form 1093 changes, the box customer must update the application on file at the post office.
§D910.2.2 states:
An application for post office box service may not be approved until the applicant's identity and current permanent physical address where he or she resides or conducts business is verified.
§D910.8.2 states:
A postmaster may terminate post office box service, . . ., if the box customer . . . refuses to update information on the box application. . .
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 Postmaster Gresham, along with the various other documents in the case file set forth undisputed facts sufficient to resolve this case. Petitioner has not disputed the fact that she lives, at least primarily, in California and that the address originally listed on her June 1988 Form 1093 is no longer accurate. Nor has she disputed that she has failed to update her Form 1093 to include a current physical residence, as required by the DMM provisions quoted above.
The original dispute in this case was over Petitioner’s entitlement to box service at the no-fee rate, but that is a matter over which the Judicial Officer Department has no jurisdiction. (See George J. Devos, P.S. Docket No. POB 01-111 (P.S.D. September 7, 2001). As the controversy continued, however, it was made clear to Petitioner that she was entitled to maintain her post office box at the appropriate fee, if she properly completed and updated her application form. When Petitioner failed to do so, the postmaster properly initiated action to terminate box service.
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).
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the postmaster's determination to terminate Petitioner's post office box service at P. O. Box 67, based on DMM Sections D910.2.1(a), D910.2.1(d), D910.2.2, and D910.8.2, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[1] Petitioner’s March 24, 2004 letter to a customer service supervisor in Spokane, Washington, protesting the postmaster’s action, was treated as a Petition and the case file was forwarded to the Judicial Officer Department on March 26, 2004.