In the Matter of the Petition by

XPIETOE CHRISTOS

Determination to Terminate Post Office Box
Service for Post Office Box 784
Palm Beach, FL 33480-0784

P.S. Docket No. POB 06-48

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Xpietoe Christos

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Catherine Green, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel
United States Postal Service

INITIAL DECISION

            This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Mr. Christos after the Palm Beach, Florida Postmaster informed him that his post office box service was being terminated because he was using the box only to have mail forwarded to another address.^[1]

            On April 17, 2006, 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 Palm Beach Postmaster and some supporting documents. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion but he did not do so.^[2] The following findings of fact are based on all the material submitted by the parties.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1. Petitioner has rented Post Office Box 784 at the Palm Beach, Florida Post Office for several years. (Petition, Form 1093 attached).

            2. On January 7, 2005, Petitioner submitted a PS Form 3575, Official Mail Forwarding Change of Address Order, directing that mail be forwarded to 121 Heritage Riverwood Drive, Apt. L, Central, SC 29630, effective January 24, 2005, until July 29, 2005. (Wiedman Declaration, Ex. 1).

            3. On July 12, 2005, Petitioner submitted another PS Form 3575, directing that mail continue to be forwarded to 121 Heritage Riverwood Drive, Apt. L, Central, SC 29630, from July 12, 2005, until February 17, 2006. (Wiedman Declaration, Ex. 2).

            4. On February 11, 2006, Petitioner submitted a third PS Form 3575, directing that mail continue to be forwarded to 121 Heritage Riverwood Drive, Apt. L, Central, SC 29630, from February 17, 2006, until February 17, 2007. (Wiedman Declaration, Ex. 3).

            5. On February 23, 2006, the postmaster sent Petitioner a letter, informing him that postal regulations do not permit a post office box to be used primarily for mail forwarding, and that his box service was being terminated for that reason. The letter also informed Petitioner of his right to appeal the decision by filing a Petition. (Wiedman Declaration, Ex. 4).

            6. Rules governing post office box service are found in Section 508 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM300). Provisions pertinent here are:

DMM 508.4.4.6 Forwarding

A post office box may not be used when the primary purpose is to have the USPS forward or transfer mail to another address free of charge.

DMM 508.4.9.2 Termination

A postmaster may terminate post office box service, . . ., if the box customer . . . violates any standard on the care or use of the box; . . . The customer is notified of the postmaster's determination to refuse or terminate service and of the appeal procedures for that determination.

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 postmaster’s Declaration and the attached documents set forth undisputed facts sufficient to resolve this case. Petitioner has submitted three mail forwarding orders directing that his mail be forwarded continuously for two years. This establishes that he is using the box for the primary purpose of having the USPS forward his mail free of charge, in violation of Section 508.4.4.6, quoted above.

            Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and the postmaster's determination to terminate Petitioner’s post office box service at P. O. Box 784, based on DMM Sections 508.4.4.6 and 508.4.9.2, is sustained.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

[1]  A handwritten letter from Petitioner, received by the postmaster on March 14, 2006 was treated as a Petition under the provisions of 39 C.F.R. Part 958.

[2]  All the pleadings and Orders relating to this case were sent to Petitioner by certified mail to an address he provided and all were returned unclaimed. It is a litigant’s responsibility to receive and accept mail sent to him in connection with the case. Failure to do so does not excuse a failure to file a timely reply. Sindy D. Thomas, P. S. Docket No. POB 02-96 (P.S.D. Feb. 28, 2003); Christian Duru and Femmy Akene, P. S. Docket No. MD 00-490 (P.S.D. March 21, 2001).