In the Matter of the Petition by                                )
                                                                               )
CHRISTOPHER J. ROHNER                                     )
P. O. Box 352                                                         )
Newtown Square, PA 19073-0352                       )
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
                                                                               )
Termination of Mail Box Service                             )
for P.O. Box 352, Newtown Square, PA               )     P.S. Docket No. POB 99-2

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:                           Christopher J. Rohner
                                                                               P. O. Box 352
                                                                               Newtown Square, PA 19073-0352

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:                        Joseph K. Moore, Esq.
                                                                               Consumer Protection Law
                                                                               United States Postal Service
                                                                               475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
                                                                               Washington, D.C. 20260-1127

This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Rohner, appealing the postmaster’s determination that Post Office Box 352 was to be closed because of his refusal to update required information on the box application. On January 20, 1999, Respondent, United States Postal Service, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no issues of material fact in dispute and that Respondent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Petitioner did not reply to the motion.

The following findings of fact are based on the documents filed with the Petition and Respondent’s motion, primarily the December 29, 1998 statement of the postmaster, Glenn R. Baker.

1. Petitioner, Mr. Rohner, has rented Post Office Box 352 for a few years. On the original application, he listed 3731 Gradyville Road, Newtown Square, as his address.

2. Sometime in 1996, the mail carrier advised the box clerk and the postmaster that mail addressed to a new name was being delivered to 3731 Gradyville Road. Because of this, when Mr. Rohner’s box was due for renewal in January 1997 he was asked to complete a new application, PS Form 1093.

3. Petitioner submitted a new Form 1093 on January 13, 1997, again listing 3731 Gradyville Road as his address. Because he offered a Pennsylvania driver's license showing that same address, the application was accepted and the box was renewed.

4. In November 1998, the mail carrier reported that mail addressed to Mr. Rohner at 3731 Gradyville Road was being returned to the mailbox, with the notation "Does not live here," written on it. A new Form 1093 was placed in Box 352, with instructions that it again be updated. When the application was not returned within two weeks, the postmaster instructed the box clerk to lock the box and instruct Mr. Rohner to talk to a supervisor.

5. On December 4, 1998, the postmaster told Mr. Rohner, in the postmaster’s office, why the box had been locked, and explained that he would have to update the form within ten days and provide proof of his physical residence. When Mr. Rohner failed to do so, the postmaster issued a letter on December 15, 1998, terminating box service. Mr. Rohner then filed this Petition.

6. Section D910.2.4 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) states:

An applicant for post office box service or a current box customer seeking renewal must identify his or her physical address (i.e., an individual’s residence or a business’s location) to the postmaster of the office where service is sought or provided. If the postmaster cannot confirm the physical address, the applicant or box customer must provide proof of the physical address . . ..

7. Section D910.3.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) states:

When any information required to be provided by the box customer on Form 1093 changes, the customer must notify the post office of such changes.

8. 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."

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 rules quoted above (FOF 6-7) are clear. Rather than comply with those rules, a relatively easy thing to do it would seem, Mr. Rohner has complained that the postmaster is harassing him. He did not reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment, however, and has not disputed the essential facts asserted in the postmaster’s December 29, 1998 statement, i.e., that he has not provided a verifiable physical address on his application for a post office box. Therefore, there are no genuine issues of fact, and summary judgment is appropriate.

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. 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). Further, Petitioner is not being deprived of his right to receive mail. He may have mail delivered at a residence address, or he may re-apply for box service by properly completing the application form.

The postmaster’s determination to close Petitioner’s post office box, based on failure to comply with Sections D910.2.4 and D910.3.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the Petition is dismissed.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge