In the Matter of the Petition by

BETTY BEST
P.O. Box 55621
Circle Branch Station

at

Trenton, NJ 08638-6621

Termination of Service P.O. Box 55621, Circle Branch Station, Trenton, NJ 08638-6621

P.S. Docket No.  POB 02-522

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Betty Best
19124 Allison Square
West Windsor, NJ  08550-5328

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
J. Patrick Tyrrell
Law Department
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW
Washington, DC  20260-1135

INITIAL DECISION

            This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Ms. Best after receiving a written notice from Marco Frassetti, the Station Manager at Circle Branch Station, Trenton, New Jersey, informing Petitioner that her post office box service would be terminated on August 17, 2002.^[1]

            On December 24, 2002, 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.  Attached to the motion were sworn declarations from Mr. Frassetti and Nathaniel Montgomery, Customer Service Supervisor at Circle Branch Station.  Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion but did not do so.^[2]  As Petitioner did not reply, the following findings of fact are based for the most part on the material submitted in support of Respondent’s motion.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1.  For some years, Petitioner has rented post office box 55621 at the Circle Branch Station in Trenton, New Jersey.

            2.  On August 3, 2002, Petitioner came to lobby of the Circle Branch Station and, wishing to make a complaint about treatment by one or more of the window clerks, asked to speak to a supervisor.  When Mr. Montgomery responded, Petitioner referred to the clerks as, “these a__h___s you have working here,” and as “dysfunctional illiterates.”  (Montgomery Declaration).

            3.  Mr. Montgomery told Petitioner he could not discuss her problem if she used profanity or made insulting comments about the clerks.  Petitioner became angry with Mr. Montgomery, stated that he would not treat her this way if she were white, called him an “a__h___,” and left.  Mr. Montgomery then locked Petitioner’s post office box so that she would have to speak with him or the manager when she next returned.  (Montgomery Declaration).

            4.  Petitioner returned on August 10, 2002.  On discovering that her box was locked, she asked to speak to someone other than “that stupid black man” [Montgomery].  When Mr. Montgomery appeared, Petitioner again became angry and shouted and cursed at him.  Mr. Montgomery asked another employee to call the police and told Petitioner that he would ask the police to remove her from the building if she continued to behave in such a hostile manner.  Petitioner left before the police arrived.  Mr. Montgomery gave a statement to the police.  Later, he prepared the letter that the Station Manager, Mr. Frassetti, sent to Petitioner, notifying Petitioner that her post office box service would be terminated.  (Montgomery Declaration; Frassetti Declaration).

            5.  Section D910.8.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including “if the box customer . . .; conducts himself or herself in a violent, threatening, or abusive manner on postal premises.” 

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 (1970); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

            The sworn declaration of Mr. Montgomery sets forth facts sufficient to resolve this case.^[3]  As noted above, Petitioner did not reply to the motion for summary judgment.  Therefore, although she challenged Mr. Montgomery’s version of the events of August 3 and August 10 in earlier letters to various Postal Service officials, she has not countered Mr. Montgomery’s sworn statement with a sworn statement of her own, or any other evidence.  Her earlier letters, which were part of the material forwarded by the New York Metro Office, are not sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment.^[4]

            Mr. Montgomery’s Declaration does not establish that Petitioner’s conduct was violent or threatening, but it was clearly abusive toward him and other postal employees at the Circle Branch Station.  It provides a sufficient basis for a postmaster to terminate post office box service under the DMM provision quoted above.

            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).  Prohibiting abusive conduct toward postal employees is certainly a reasonable requirement.  See also, 39 C.F.R. §232.1(e), which prohibits causing disturbances on postal property.

            Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the determination to terminate post office box service to Petitioner at P.O. Box 55621, based on Section D910.8.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual, is sustained.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  Petitioner’s September 29, 2002 letter to Mr. Frassetti was eventually treated as an appeal of the determination to terminate service and the case file was forwarded to the Judicial Officer Department on December 5, 2002, by the Postal Service Law Department, New York Metro Office.

[2]  Because it appeared that Petitioner did not receive the motion and the Order setting the time for reply, both documents were sent to her again and the time to reply was extended to February 14, 2003.  Petitioner received the second mailing on January 31, 2003.

[3]  Mr. Montgomery’s Declaration consists of the sworn statement signed on December 23, 2002, as well as his earlier statement that he incorporated by reference in his sworn statement.

[4]  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (Advisory Committee Notes on 1963 Amendment).