April 27, 2005
In the Matter of the Petition by
JOHN HINZ
P.O. Box 8422
Determination to Terminate Post
Office Box Service for Post Office Box 8422, Long Beach, CA 90808-0422
P.S. Docket No. POB 05-11
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
John Hinz
P.O. Box 8422
Long Beach, CA 90808-0422
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6112
Washington, DC 20260-6112
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Hinz after he received a written notice dated December 27, 2004, from a supervisor at Viking Station in Long Beach, California, informing him that his post office box service was being terminated because he had failed to provide an updated application form.[1]
On March 21, 2005, 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 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply and did so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. Petitioner applied for a post office box at the Long Beach Post Office on January 28, 1976, and was assigned Box 8422 at Viking Station. On the application form he listed 5615 Peabody Street, Long Beach, California as his residence address. (Petition; M/SJ, Ex. B).
2. Sometime thereafter, Petitioner ceased to reside at 5615 Peabody Street. Petitioner has never completed a new application form, or updated his old form, to provide a new residence address. (Petition).
3. Petitioner was given notice on more than one occasion by the Long Beach Post Office that he must update the information on his application form if he wished to continue box service. (M/SJ, Exs. C1 and C2; same documents attached to Petition).
4. 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. . .[2]
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 only facts relied on by Respondent are: (1) that Petitioner no longer resides at 5615 Peabody Street, Long Beach, California, and (2) Petitioner has never updated his application form to provide a new residence address. Petitioner has not disputed these facts. As these facts are sufficient for resolution of this case, there are no material facts in dispute and summary judgment is appropriate.
Petitioner argues that there is no good reason for the requirement to update post office application forms, i.e., that the minimal value of the information to the Postal Service is outweighed by the burden it places on customers. This is not a forum, however, for debating the merits of postal regulations.
Petitioner’s contention that the Postal Service cannot force him to divulge private information is not compelling. It is true that he is entitled to choose not to provide information he wishes to keep private. The answer to this is that 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).
Whether or not there is any merit to Petitioner’s argument that the requirement to update one’s residence address is “unnecessary,” it is certainly a reasonable rule and this case presents no basis for declaring it invalid.
It is by no means clear that Petitioner is claiming to be a homeless person, although some of his statements imply that. If his complaint is that the Postal Service provides no means for a homeless person to receive mail, he is mistaken. A regulation titled, “Post Office Box Service and General Delivery Service for Persons With No Fixed Address,“ describes conditions under which a homeless person may apply for post office box service.[3]
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 8422, based on DMM Sections D910.2.1(a), D910.2.1(d), and D910.8.2, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge
[2] Citations are to the DMM Issue 58, which was in
effect prior to January 2005. The DMM
has since been revised and reorganized.
The provisions quoted above are now found, unchanged in substance, in
Section 508 – Recipient Services, Subsections 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.9.2.
[3] Postal
Bulletin 22060, p. 89 (October 4, 2001).