September
28, 2006
In
the Matter of the Petition by
WILLIAM
G. WELLS
Termination
of Post Office Box
Service
for
P.S. Docket
No. POB 06-116
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
William G. Wells
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
United States Postal Service
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by William Wells after the Minocqua, Wisconsin Postmaster informed him that the post office was unwilling to re-rent Post Office Box 801 to him because he continued to allow accumulated mail to overflow the box.
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 the Minocqua Postmaster. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion but did not do so. The following findings of fact are based on the Petition and the material submitted with Respondent’s Answer and motion.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. Petitioner has rented P.O. Box 801 for approximately ten years. In recent years, in part because Petitioner resides much of the time in California, more mail than the box can accommodate has accumulated at the Minocqua Post Office. (Petition; Stronghart Declaration, PS Forms 1532 attached).
2. On several occasions during the last three years, the postmaster has told Petitioner that he must either pick up his mail regularly, or have someone pick it up for him, to prevent the overflow, rent a larger box, or submit a forwarding request for his mail to be forwarded to his California address. (Stronghart Declaration).
3. Sometime in June 2006, Petitioner sent a check to the post office to renew box service for another year. The postmaster returned the check to Petitioner and informed him that service was being terminated because of the continuing overflow. Petitioner filed his Petition on or about July 1, 2006. (Petition; Stronghart Declaration).
4. Rules governing post office box service are found in Section 508 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM300). Provisions pertinent here are:
DMM 508.4.4.3 Accumulation of Mail
A box customer must remove mail promptly from the box. If mail will not be removed from the box for more than 30 days and an overflow condition is probable, the customer must make prior arrangements with the postmaster.
DMM 508.4.4.4 Overflow
When
mail for a customer’s post office box(es) exceeds the capacity of the box(es)
on 12 of any 20 consecutive business days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
national holidays), the customer must use caller service, change to a larger
box, or use one or more additional boxes (subject to availability) to which
mail will be addressed.
DMM 508.4.9.2 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.
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 postmaster’s Declaration and the attached documents set forth undisputed facts sufficient to resolve this case. Petitioner has not disputed the fact that, as stated in the postmaster’s Declaration, Petitioner has not picked up his mail regularly or taken any other action to prevent the overflow for much of the last three years. Petitioner’s contention is that most of the mail addressed to Box 801 is “junk mail,” and that he has asked the postmaster to put only first class mail in the box and throw away the “junk.” This, he claims, will eliminate the overflow.
One suspects that even Petitioner is
aware that his proposed solution is not something a postmaster may lawfully do.
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 801, based on DMM Sections 508.4.4.3, 508.4.4.4, and 508.4.9.2, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge