In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
THERESA A. PETRILLO                                          )
131 Nimbus Road                                                   )
Holbrook, NY 11741-4433                                      )
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
Termination of Post Office Box Service                 )
for P.O. Box 451, Holbrook, NY                              )    P.S. Docket No. POB 98-195

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                            Theresa A. Petrillo
                                                                                131 Nimbus Road
                                                                                Holbrook, NY 11741-4433

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                         Janessa L. Grady, Esq.
                                                                                Civil Practice Section
                                                                                United States Postal Service
                                                                                475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
                                                                                Washington, D.C. 20260-1127

INITIAL DECISION

This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Ms. Petrillo after being informed by a letter dated April 27, 1998, from the Holbrook, New York Postmaster, Clinton R. O'Neill, that he had decided to close her post office box because her behavior had been "abusive and threatening on a regular basis."

With its Answer, Respondent, United States Postal Service, filed a Declaration from a Holbrook window clerk and a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there are no material facts in dispute and that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By Order dated June 10, 1998, Petitioner was given until July 6, 1998 to reply to the motion and was advised that she should state specifically what portions of Respondent's "Statement of Facts" she disagrees with. Petitioner received that Order on June 13, 1998, but submitted no reply.

The following findings of fact are based on the Petition and the Declaration of Leslie Funk, filed by Respondent:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner rents Box 451 at the Holbrook, New York Post Office. She comes to the post office approximately once per week to pick up mail. Often during these visits, she has accused the clerks of stealing her mail or the keys to her box. To allay her fears, the clerks have changed the lock on Box 451 several times. (Funk Declaration).

2. On April 23, 1998, after picking up her mail, Petitioner again accused the clerks of stealing her mail. As she was being told by one of the clerks that this was not so, Petitioner saw one of the mail carriers walking toward his car. She then said he was stealing her mail at that very moment, and urged someone to go after him. Petitioner's loud talking and movement around the post office lobby caused some disturbance, and caused other customers to be delayed for several minutes in getting service. The postmaster was summoned by one of the clerks and he warned Petitioner that he would call the police if she did not leave. She did not leave, so he did call the police but she left before they arrived. (Funk Declaration).

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). By the Declaration of Leslie Funk, a witness to the events of April 23 as well as earlier visits by Petitioner to the Holbrook Post Office, which Declaration was not contested or contradicted by Petitioner, Respondent has established the absence of any genuine issue of fact. As Petitioner has not offered anything to counter this evidence, summary judgment is appropriate.

Section D910.8.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) gives a postmaster authority to terminate box service if a customer "conducts himself or herself in a violent, threatening, or otherwise abusive manner on postal premises.⁽¹⁾ " There is no evidence that Petitioner's conduct was violent or threatening, but it was abusive toward the clerks personally and it was abusive of other customers right to conduct business in an orderly manner.⁽²⁾ The fact that she had made similar accusations against the clerks on earlier occasions is also an important consideration in judging the reasonableness of the postmaster's decision.

In her Petition, Ms. Petrillo airs many complaints, most of which do not involve the Postal Service at all. She presents no evidence, however, that her accusations against postal employees have any basis in fact. She also denies that she was abusive on April 23, or any other time, but I find Ms. Funk's sworn statement to be more persuasive.

CONCLUSION

The postmaster acted within his authority under DMM §D910.8.2 to terminate Petitioner's post office box service. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the postmaster's decision to terminate Petitioner's post office box service is sustained. The Petition is dismissed.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

1. The word abusive is omitted from the current printed version of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM53, January 1, 1998). I conclude that this is an inadvertent printing error, as this entire phrase was a recent addition (see 62 Fed. Reg. 26,090, May 12, 1997, and 62 Fed. Reg. 31,513, June 10, 1997) and it was contained, with the word abusive included, in the previous issue of the DMM. (DMM52, July 1, 1997). I also note that the corresponding provision for termination of Caller Service, §D920.6.2, contains precisely the same language, with the word abusive, included.

2. Another Postal Service regulation governing Conduct on Postal Property, prohibits conduct that impedes or disturbs the general public in transacting business or obtaining the services provided on property. 39 C.F.R. §232.1(e).