This from
Manchester CA. The court desided that a postmaster can close a
customers PO Box for not showing proper ID in renewing box, an
that new regulations required proof of the applicant's physical
address, and that identification was needed for all persons who
would be receiving mail at that box.
http://www.usps.com/judicial/2001deci/pob00-292id.htm
In the Matter of the Petition by ) January 26, 2001 ) JOAN B. SCHULTZ ) P.O. Box 163 ) Manchester, CA 95459-0163 ) ) ) Notice of Determination to Close ) P.O. Box 163, Manchester, CA ) 95459-0163 ) P.S. Docket No. POB 00-292 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Joan B. Schultz P.O. Box 163 Manchester, CA 95459-0163 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Catherine A. Green, Esq. Civil Practice Section United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Room 6403 Washington, DC 20260-1127
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Ms. Schultz after a lengthy exchange of correspondence with the San Francisco District Office. Letters to Ms. Schultz from the Manager, Post Office Operations, and the District Manager, on May 17, 2000 and July 19, 2000, informed her that she must file an updated post office box application in order to continue post office box service.
On August 24, 2000, 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. After a series of replies and counter-replies, and requests for documents by Petitioner, the case is ready for decision. The following findings of fact are based on all the material filed by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner completed a PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box, on December 28, 1984, and was issued P.O. Box 163. The application was in the names Old Manchester School and J. B. Schultz, at 19750 State Highway 1, and only those two names were listed on the form as authorized to receive mail at Box 163. (Murphy Declaration, ¶3; Ex. A to Murphy Declaration)
2. Kathleen Paris-Murphy has been the Manchester, California Postmaster since 1988. On December 28, 1999, Ms. Murphy sent Petitioner a letter stating that she had received Ms. Schultz's money order and renewal form for P.O. Box 163, but that more information was needed. Specifically, the letter stated that new regulations required proof of the applicant's physical address, two forms of identification, and that identification information had to be recorded on the form. The letter also stated that mail addressed to other names had been received at Box 163 and that identification was needed for all persons who would be receiving mail at that box. Petitioner replied, stating that nothing had changed since her original application, that the address was not a business address, and that she received all mail addressed to box 163 even though some people misspell her name. (Murphy Declaration, ¶¶8, 9, 12 and 13; Ex. C to Murphy Declaration)
3. On February 3, 2000, Ms. Murphy sent Petitioner a second letter, stating essentially the same thing as the earlier letter. On March 27, 2000, Ms. Murphy sent Petitioner a note titled, "Final Notice," stating that she would be required to close Petitioner's box if Petitioner did not provide the requested information. On April 10, 2000, Ms. Murphy sent Petitioner two memoranda and another letter, explaining the address and identification requirements, and again stating that the box would be closed if Petitioner did not provide the information. (Murphy Declaration, ¶¶14-20; Exs. D-H to Murphy Declaration)
4. Petitioner wrote letters to other Postal Service officials and filed complaint forms, complaining about the postmaster's actions and insisting that nothing had changed since her original post office box application, but she did not provide the information requested by Ms. Murphy. (Murphy Declaration, ¶21; attachments to Petitioner's September 23, 2000 submission)
5. On May 3, 2000, Ms. Murphy wrote to Petitioner, stating that her post office box would be closed if the required information was not received by May 12, 2000. On May 17, 2000, the Manager of Post Office Operations, Mr. Sajonas, replied to Petitioner's earlier letter, reaffirming the rules stated by Ms. Murphy and offering to have another employee assist Petitioner at another location if it was inconvenient for Petitioner to get to the Manchester Post Office during business hours. On July 19, 2000, the San Francisco District Manager, Mr. Tucker, replied to a letter Petitioner had written to the Postmaster General. Mr. Tucker also re-stated the rules previously stated by Ms. Murphy. Petitioner's July 27, 2000 reply to Mr. Tucker was docketed as a Petition under 39 C.F.R. Part 958. (Murphy Declaration, ¶¶22-27; Exs. I-K to Murphy Declaration)
6. Petitioner does not reside at 19750 State Highway 1 (Murphy Declaration, ¶11).
7. Petitioner has not updated her PS Form 1093 to list who are the authorized recipients of mail at Box 163 (Murphy Declaration, ¶8).
8. Section D910.2.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM Issue 55) states:
9. Section D910.3.2 of the DMM states:
10. DMM Section D910.8.2 gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including if a 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; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The sworn declaration of the postmaster, Ms. Murphy, and other documents filed by Respondent set forth facts pertinent to resolution of this case. Although Petitioner has disputed some of the facts asserted by Respondent, she has not presented any evidence to challenge the essential facts. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate.
The determinative issue in this case is whether Petitioner has provided proof of a physical residence, as required by DMM §D910.2.3. That section requires such proof from a post office box customer seeking renewal, as well as from a new applicant. The postmaster's sworn declaration states that she is familiar with the address provided by Petitioner, that it is a former schoolhouse and that no one lives there. Petitioner alleges that the postmaster unlawfully trespassed and invaded Petitioner's privacy, but Petitioner has not presented any evidence that she actually resides at the disputed address, or even stated unequivocally that she resides at that address. Because Petitioner's failure to comply with this requirement is a sufficient basis for upholding the postmaster's decision, it is not necessary to address the question of whether Petitioner is required to produce personal identification documents that meet the standards of the current regulation, even if the identification Petitioner showed when she submitted her original application was sufficient at that time.
Petitioner's argument that the Postal Service should be barred by the doctrine of laches is without merit. That doctrine is premised on an unreasonable delay by a party asserting a claim, and that delay causing harm to the other party.2 It is not clear that there was an unreasonable delay by the Postal Service in asking Petitioner to update the information on her post office box application but, even assuming there was, Petitioner has made no showing that she was harmed in any way by the delay.
Petitioner has also submitted no persuasive evidence to support her allegations that the postmaster has harassed her or unfairly discriminated against her, or that anyone has stolen or tampered with her mail.
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). Requiring information with which to verify a physical address at which a boxholder may be located is certainly reasonable.
The record shows that Petitioner has not provided a verifiable physical address, and that she has not provided any updated information on authorized recipients of mail, as requested by Ms. Murphy. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the postmaster's determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner, based on failure to comply with Sections D910.2.3 and D910.3.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston Chief Administrative Law Judge
1 DMM Issue 55 was in effect at all times pertinent to this case. The current version (Issue 56) took effect on January 7, 2001, but none of the pertinent provisions have changed.
2 A. C. Aukerman Co. v. R. L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1028-29 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Michael D. Tomsyck, Postal Service Docket No. POB 98-168 (P.S.D. September 22, 1998); see also Black's Law Dictionary 875 (6th ed. 1990).