In the Matter of the Petition by                                ) 
                                                                               )
MICHAEL H. BRIGGS                                              )
P.O. Box 15                                                            )
Camp Meeker, CA 95419-0015                              )
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
Termination of Post Office Box Service                 )
for P.O. Box 15 at Camp Meeker, CA                     )  P.S. Docket No. POB 99-286

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Michael H. Briggs
                                                                               P.O. Box 15
                                                                               Camp Meeker, CA 95419-0015

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

This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Briggs after receiving a letter from Janis E. Kelley, the Camp Meeker Postmaster, informing him that she had decided to close his post office box because his behavior had been "abusive and threatening on a regular basis."

With its Answer, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed sworn Declarations from the postmaster, and two customers who witnessed Mr. Briggs' actions, along with 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. Petitioner replied to the motion, denying any abusive or threatening behavior and making various accusations of improper conduct by the postmaster. He did not address the statements of the witnesses. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

1. Petitioner has rented post office box 15 for an unknown period of time, but at least since March 1999. Janis Kelley became the postmaster at Camp Meeker in March 1999. Other than a part-time employee who works on Saturdays, she operates the Camp Meeker Post Office by herself. (Kelley Decl.)

2. Petitioner comes to the post office nearly every day to pick up mail, and to use the pay telephone that is located near the entrance to the post office. On many occasions he has complained that people are stealing his mail. On some occasions he became quite agitated and loud, and Ms. Kelley told him he would have to leave if he did not calm down. (Kelley Decl.)

3. On or about June 1, 1999, Petitioner collected his mail and then came to the counter and confronted the postmaster, claiming that someone in the post office was stealing his mail. He did this in a loud, aggressive manner, the confrontation lasting several minutes. Several times, the postmaster asked him to leave. Another customer, Mr. Larner, was present and remained until Mr. Briggs left because he was concerned for the safety of the postmaster. (Kelley Decl.; Larner Decl.)

4. On June 4, 1999, Mr. Briggs created a disturbance by shouting profanities and banging on the pay phone at the entrance to the post office. The postmaster asked him to calm down, but he shouted more profanities and said that there was nothing she could do because he was outside the building. Fred Meyer, another customer, was present and heard Mr. Briggs shouting profanities. The subject of Mr. Briggs' comments was the Postal Service. Mr. Meyer remained in the post office until Mr. Briggs left because he thought Mr. Briggs might cause more trouble. Another customer remained in her car because she would have had to walk past Mr. Briggs to enter the post office. (Kelley Decl.; Meyer Decl.)

5. On June 10, 1999, the postmaster sent Petitioner the letter informing him that his box would be closed.

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 Declarations of Ms. Kelley, Mr. Larner and Mr. Meyer, the specifics of which are not contradicted by Petitioner, Respondent has established the absence of any genuine issue of fact. Petitioner's general statement that he has done nothing but voice legitimate complaints is not sufficient to create a material factual dispute, in light of the specific facts presented by Ms. Kelley, Mr. Larner and Mr. Meyer. 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." Although there is no evidence that Petitioner's conduct was violent, it was abusive, and somewhat threatening, especially to a woman running a small post office by herself. The fact that the June 4 incident involved conduct at the entrance, rather than actually inside the post office is not significant. Petitioner was shouting and using profanity to complain about post office service, and his conduct was threatening to other postal customers. The fact that Petitioner's confrontational behavior has been a continuing course of conduct is also a consideration in judging the reasonableness of the postmaster's decision.

In his Petition, and in reply to the motion for summary judgment, Petitioner reasserts his complaint that someone is stealing his mail, and makes other unrelated complaints about the postmaster. There is no evidence, however, that the accusations that postal employees are stealing his mail have any basis in fact. His other criticisms of how the postmaster performs her job have no bearing on this case.

The postmaster acted within her 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.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge