P.S. Docket No. POB 03-178
June 13, 2003
In the Matter of the Petition by
CURTIS SETTLE
25 Fourth Road
P.O. Box 1685
at
Greenwood Lake, NY 10925-1687
P.S. Docket No. POB 03-178
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Curtis Settle
25 Fourth Road
P.O. Box 1685
Greenwood Lake, NY 10925-1687
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
J. Patrick Tyrell, Esq.
Corporate Law Section
United States Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6632
Washington, DC 20260-1135
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Settle to challenge the Greenwood Lake Postmaster’s decision to not provide home delivery to Petitioner’s residence and to not provide Petitioner a free post office box at the Greenwood Lake Post Office.
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 was a sworn declaration from Thomas J. Cunningham, the Greenwood Lake Postmaster. Respondent also argued that the Petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion and did so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Petitioner resides in Greenwood Lake, New York in a lakeside community called Wah-ta-Wah. He has rented Post Office Box 1685 at the Greenwood Lake Post Office since 1991. (Cunningham Declaration).
2. The postmaster, for safety reasons involving vehicle access to the area, has declined to provide mail delivery to Petitioner’s residence and others in Wah-ta-Wah (Petition; Cunningham Declaration and Exhibit 2 attached).
3. On March 25, 2003, Petitioner wrote to the postmaster, stating his case for home delivery and also asking that his post office box be classified at the Group E (no fee) rate until home delivery could be provided (Petition; Cunningham Declaration and Exhibit 1 attached).
4. In telephone conversations, the postmaster told Petitioner that he would not provide home delivery because of the safety issue, but that the post office would deliver to a box, or cluster of boxes, near the entrance to the Wah-ta-Wah community. He also told Petitioner that he did not qualify for the Group E (no fee) rate. The postmaster has taken no action to terminate Petitioner’s post office box service. (Cunningham Declaration).
DECISION
Petitioner’s reply to the motion for summary judgment disputes some of the facts asserted by Respondent, but he does not dispute the fact that the postmaster has taken no action to terminate his post office box service at the Greenwood Lake Post Office.
The scope of the rules in 39 C.F.R. Part 958 is limited to “cases in which a postmaster has issued a Determination denying an application for post office box or caller service, or terminating the box or caller service being provided to a customer.”[1] The dispute in this case is over something entirely different. The Judicial Officer Department has no jurisdiction to review a postmaster’s decision regarding safety issues in home delivery, the proper placement of “cluster” mailboxes, or the applicability of Group E rates. (See, Everett J. Miller, P. S. Docket No. POB 02-428 (P.S.D. Feb. 14, 2003); George J. Devos, P. S. Docket No. POB 01-111 (P.S.D. Sept. 7, 2001).).
Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate, but the Petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge