P.S. Docket No. POB 06-4
May 24, 2006
In the Matter of the Petition by
MICHAEL AND DIANE HARTMANN
Determination to Terminate Post Office Box
Service for Post Office Box 514
Gibbon, MN 55335-0514
and
Determination to Terminate Post Office Box
Service for Post Office Box 486
Gibbon, MN 55335-0486
P.S. Docket No. POB 06-4
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONERS:
Gary K. Wood, Esq.
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Thomas A. Janczewski, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
United States Postal Service
INITIAL DECISION
This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Michael and Diane Hartmann after the Gibbon, Minnesota Postmaster informed them that their post office box service was being terminated based on their failure to update a PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Caller Service.
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 the Gibbon, Minnesota Postmaster and some supporting documents. Petitioners were given an opportunity to reply to the motion and they did so. The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. For several years, the Hartmanns received personal mail by general delivery at the Gibbon, Minnesota Post Office, and also rented two post office boxes for business mail. (Petition; Martinez Declaration).
2. In May/June 2005, the new Gibbon Postmaster informed Mr. Hartmann that their general delivery service would be discontinued, citing a rule stating that this service was intended as a temporary means of delivery for customers not permanently located. He offered to rent Mr. Hartmann another box for personal mail, but Mr. Hartmann declined to include a physical address on the application, PS Form 1093, and the application was denied. (Martinez Declaration).
3. On June 23, 2005, Mr. Hartmann filed a change-of-address order, directing that general delivery mail be forwarded to P.O. Box 486. (Martinez Declaration).
4. In August 2005, in response to direction from supervisory authority that all information from PS Forms 1093 must be entered into a computer system, the postmaster asked all his post office box customers to update information on their Form 1093. In the course of reviewing this information, the postmaster discovered that his office did not have a complete Form 1093 for either of the Hartmann’s boxes. Specifically, the section of the forms that should have included a physical address was missing. (Martinez Declaration; Exs. 1 and 2 attached).
5. Over the next few months, the postmaster asked Mr. Hartmann several times to complete the form, but Mr. Hartmann declined to do so. The postmaster refunded the rental payments to Mr. Hartmann and told him that the boxes would be closed six months after the renewal dates if he did not provide the missing information on the PS Forms 1093. (Martinez Declaration).
6. In December 2005, P.O. Box 486 was closed and the post office began forwarding mail to P.O. Box 514. The Hartmanns filed their Petition before Box 514 was due to be closed. In accordance with the rules governing post office box disputes, that box has remained open during the litigation of this case. (Martinez Declaration).
7. The Hartmanns live on a family farm near Gibbon, Minnesota. (Martinez Declaration; Ex. 3 attached).
8. Section 508.4.3.1(a) of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM300) requires a post office box customer to fill in all required information on the application form, PS Form 1093. This includes a physical residence or business address. Section 508.4.3.1(d) also requires the customer to update the form any time pertinent information changes.
9. Section 508.4.9.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual gives a postmaster authority to terminate post office box service for various reasons, including if the customer “refuses to update information on the box application.”
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 the postmaster, along with the copy of Petitioners’ Form 1093 attached, is sufficient to establish the absence of any genuine issue of fact.
In their reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Petitioners raise many issues about the actions and the motives of the postmaster, but they do not challenge the one essential material fact, i.e., that Petitioners have refused to update their Form 1093 by providing a physical address. Their principal argument on this point is that the postmaster knows where Petitioners live. Perhaps he does, but it is the customer’s responsibility, not the postmaster’s, to complete and update the Form 1093. There being no factual dispute that Petitioners have failed to do this, Respondent is entitled to summary judgment.
Petitioners’ other arguments also miss the mark. Petitioners appear to find fault with the postmaster’s “recognizing one of Petitioners’ post office box addresses.” This is explained in Finding #6. The postmaster was simply following the prescribed procedural rules once the Petition was filed.
Petitioners also challenge the postmaster’s termination of their general delivery service. That issue was mooted by Mr. Hartmann’s submission of a change-of-address order (see Finding #3). In addition, that is a matter outside the jurisdiction of this forum. 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]
Petitioners also argue that the failure of the postmaster to issue a written determination to terminate the post office box service is not a harmless procedural error. I disagree. It is true that the regulation contemplates that a postmaster will issue a formal letter stating the reason(s) for termination and explaining the customer’s appeal rights. However, I can perceive no harm to Petitioners in this case. They have filed their Petition, they have had an opportunity to air all the issues they believe to be relevant, and their box service has remained open during this proceeding.
Finally, Petitioners argue that requiring them to recognize a definable physical address is a violation of their religious beliefs. Clearly, it is Petitioners’ right to choose not to identify their address, whether for religious reasons, privacy reasons, or any other. But 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).
Whether or not there is any merit to Petitioner’s argument that a postmaster should have discretion to accept an incomplete application form if he “knows” where the customer lives, the requirement for the customer to update the form to keep a residence address current on a written record is certainly a reasonable rule and this case presents no basis for declaring it invalid.
Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the postmaster's determination to terminate Petitioners' post office box service at P. O. Boxes 486 and 514, based on DMM Sections 508.4.3.1 and 508.4.9.2, is sustained.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge