In the Matter of the Petition by

JOAN N. NESTOR-ROSES
875 Dahlia Street #7
Denver, CO 80220-4220

Appeal of P.O. Box Closure,
P.O. Box 336, Gloucester, MA
01931-0336

P.S. Docket No. POB 01-239

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Joan N. Nestor-Roses
875 Dahlia Street, #7
Denver, CO 80220-4220

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine A. Green, Esq.
Corporate Law Section, Room 6112
United States Postal Service
475 L’Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20260-1135

This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Ms. Nestor-Roses in response to a letter from the Gloucester, Massachusetts Postmaster, dated April 30, 2001. That letter informed Petitioner that P.O. Box 336, formerly rented by Petitioner, had been rented to another customer and was not available to Petitioner. The letter also told Petitioner that she could apply for a new post office box.

With the Answer, filed on August 10, 2001, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, also filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the Judicial Officer Department has no jurisdiction in this matter. Attached to the motion was a sworn Declaration from Michael Brennan, a Gloucester postal employee. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion, but did not do so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

1. For some years prior to September 2000, Petitioner rented Post Office Box 336 at the Gloucester Post Office. (Petition).

2. On September 26, 2000, Petitioner signed and submitted a Change of Address Form, PS Form 3575, indicating a permanent change of address from P.O. Box 336 to an address in Denver, Colorado. (Brennan Declaration, Ex. A).

3. On October 2, 2000, Mr. Brennan closed P.O. Box 336 and processed the change of address. Shortly thereafter, P.O. Box 336 was rented to another customer who is still renting that box. (Brennan Declaration).

4. In December 2000, Petitioner sent the Gloucester Post Office a check to renew her rental of Box 336. The check was returned to her with a note stating that the box had been rented to another customer. (Brennan Declaration; attachments to Petition).

5. Thereafter, Petitioner began a letter writing campaign to protest the actions of the Gloucester Post Office, and on June 29, 2001, filed the letter that was docketed as a Petition.

6. Under postal regulations, a post office box is deemed to be surrendered and may be immediately re-rented to another customer if the current customer submits a permanent change of address order. Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) §D910.8.4; Postal Operations Manual (POM) §841.32(a); §841.35.

Petitioner argues that the Gloucester Post Office acted improperly in renting her box to someone else. She asserts that she did not intend to surrender the box and that she kept her rental payments current.

39 C.F.R. Part 958, granting a customer the right to petition for review in the Judicial Officer Department, applies to cases in which a postmaster has issued a formal determination denying an application for a post office box, or terminating post office box service. A determination, in the form of a letter, is required only when service is denied or terminated for one of the reasons stated in the Domestic Mail Manual §§D910.8.1 or D910.8.2. These reasons include abuse of the box, use of the box for unlawful purposes, submitting false information in renting the box, or otherwise violating postal regulations involving a post office box. A postmaster does not issue a determination when a box is surrendered, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore, questions concerning surrender of a post office box are not appealable to an Administrative Law Judge or the Judicial Officer, nor is there any authority to direct the return of a post office box to a former boxholder after it has been rented to another customer. Cyrus Cardan a/k/a Cyrus Azami, P. S. Docket No. POB 98-37 (P.S.D. August 27, 1998); William Kuntz, III, P.S. Docket No. 40/55 (P.S.D. April 26, 1993); Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 37/120 (P.S.D. Sept. 12, 1991).

Respondent's motion for summary judgment is more appropriately treated as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It is granted and the Petition is dismissed.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge