Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n, s. 12–1095

Decision Date08 July 2014
Docket Number12–1110,Nos. 12–1095,12–1157.,s. 12–1095
Citation757 F.3d 300
PartiesElaine Joan MITTLEMAN, Petitioner v. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent United States Postal Service, Intervenor.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Elaine J. Mittleman argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioners.

Abby C. Wright, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Ronald C. Machen, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Michael S. Raab and Jeffrey E. Sandberg, Attorneys, Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, and R. Brian Corcoran, Deputy General Counsel.

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judge, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GARLAND.

GARLAND, Chief Judge:

The petitioners in these consolidated cases do not want their local post offices closed. They unsuccessfully opposed the closures of the three post offices at issue by the United States Postal Service, unsuccessfully appealed the Postal Service's determinations to the Postal Regulatory Commission, and now seek review of the Commission's decisions in this court. Because one of the petitions has become moot, and because the other two involve Commission decisions that are not subject to judicial review, their current effort is likewise unsuccessful.

I

The Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1976 created a series of procedural steps that the United States Postal Service must follow before “closing or consolidat[ing] a post office. Pub.L. No. 94–421, § 9(a), 90 Stat. 1303, 1310–11 (codified as amended at 39 U.S.C. § 404(d)). Before making a determination to close or consolidate, the Postal Service must give adequate notice to those served by the post office to ensure that they have an opportunity to present their views. Id. § 404(d)(1). The Postal Service must also consider a list of factors set out in the statute. Id. § 404(d)(2)(A)(i)-(v). If the Postal Service decides to close or consolidate, it must commit its decision, including its findings regarding the listed factors, to writing and make that decision publicly available. Id. § 404(d)(3). “A determination of the Postal Service to close or consolidate any post office may be appealed by any person served by such office to the Postal Regulatory Commission.” Id. § 404(d)(5).1

These consolidated cases involve challenges to the planned closures of three postal facilities: the Pimmit Branch in Fairfax County, Virginia; the Venice Post Office in Venice, California; and the Spring Dale Post Office in Spring Dale, West Virginia.

On January 7, 2010, the Postal Service notified customers of the Pimmit Branch that services might be discontinued in light of the recent opening of a new, larger post office less than two miles away. After seeking and receiving comment, the Postal Service made a final determination to close the branch and did so on November 10, 2011. Petitioner Elaine Mittleman appealed that determination to the Postal Regulatory Commission, contending, inter alia, that the Postal Service failed to follow the proper procedures for closure. The Commission reasoned that, under its precedents, it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the relocation of postal services from the Pimmit Branch to another nearby facility was not a “closure” (or a “consolidation”) 2 within the meaning of the statute. According to the Commission's interpretation of 39 U.S.C. § 404(d)(5), a closure subject to its review occurs only when the Postal Service “eliminat[es] ... facilities” within a community. PRC Order No. 1159, Docket No. A2011–90, at 11 (Pimmit Branch, Falls Church, VA) (Jan. 20, 2012). Because the Postal Service moved the services provided by Pimmit Branch to another close-by facility in the same area, its action was not a closure but rather a “rearrangement[ ] of postal facilities within a community.” Id. at 10, 12.

On April 26, 2011, the Postal Service advised the public that it was considering closing and selling the Venice Post Office building and moving its services 400 feet across the street to what had been an annex facility. On July 18, following a five-week comment period, the Postal Service announced that it had decided to close the post office. Petitioners Venice Stakeholders Association and Mark Ryavec (now joined by a number of other concerned individuals and the Free Venice Beachhead newspaper) appealed the determination to the Postal Regulatory Commission, arguing that closure would severely reduce or temporarily eliminate the availability of postal services to the community. As in the Pimmit Branch case, the Commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it found that the Postal Service's “relocation” of the facility was not a “clos[ure] within the meaning of 39 U.S.C. § 404(d)(5). PRC Order No. 1166, Docket No. A2012–17, at 8–9 (Venice Post Office, Venice, CA) (Jan. 24, 2012).

On March 18, 2011, the Postal Service distributed questionnaires to customers of the Spring Dale Post Office concerning a possible decision to close that post office. On April 6, the Postal Service held a community meeting concerning possible closure, followed by a two-month comment period. On October 21, 2011, the Postal Service posted its final determination to close the Spring Dale Post Office, citing the office's vacant postmaster position, financial concerns, and the minimal effect the closure would have on the community. Petitioner Paul McClung (later joined by other affected individuals) filed an appeal with the Postal Regulatory Commission, alleging faulty reasoning on the part of the Postal Service as well as failure to comply with the proper procedures. After considering the merits of the challenge, the Commission divided 2–2 regarding the closure of the Spring Dale Post Office, which under Commission practice had the effect of affirming the Postal Service's determination. PRC Order No. 1262, Docket No. A2012–68, at 2 n. 4 (Spring Dale Post Office, Spring Dale, WV) (Feb. 27, 2012).

In February and March 2012, the petitioners filed the petitions now before us, contending that they are entitled to judicial review of the Commission's decisions and seeking reversal and remand of those decisions.

II

We begin by considering whether any of the petitioners' challenges have become moot during the course of this litigation. “In general, a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200, 1204 (D.C.Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). This can happen when “the court can provide no effective remedy because a party has already obtained all the relief that it has sought.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When a case is moot, a federal court is without jurisdiction to decide it. Id.

On April 11, 2013, the Postal Service informed customers of the Spring Dale Post Office that it had decided to keep that office open, albeit with reduced hours. See Letter from David C. Belt, Attorney, U.S. Postal Service to Mark J. Langer, Clerk of Court, D.C. Circuit, at attach. (Oct. 11, 2013). The Postal Service has advised us that this action has “the practical effect of rescinding” its 2011 decision to close the post office, and that, “in the event that the Postal Service later initiates a discontinuance action and decides to close” the office again, it will “comply with the process set forth in 39 U.S.C. § 404(d).” Id. at 1. Accordingly, because the petitioners in the Spring Dale case have received all the relief they sought, their petition is moot and must be dismissed. See Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70, 104 S.Ct. 373, 78 L.Ed.2d 58 (1983); Conservation Force, 733 F.3d at 1204.

The Postal Regulatory Commission acknowledges that the petitions regarding the two other post offices are not moot. Oral Arg. Recording at 29:37–30:53. Although the Postal Service no longer occupies the buildings that housed the Pimmit Branch and Venice Post Office, the Commission represents that, if this court were to set aside and remand the challenged decisions, the Postal Service may be able to offer the petitioners some relief. Id. Accordingly, we must proceed to address the remaining two petitions.

III

Citing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the petitioners ask us to “hold unlawful and set aside” the Postal Regulatory Commission's final decisions because they are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ Pet'rs' Br. 25 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). The problem for the petitioners is that the same provision of the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments that grants the Commission authority to review [a] determination of the Postal Service to close or consolidate any post office,” 39 U.S.C. § 404(d)(5), withdraws the authority that the APA would otherwise grant a court to review the Commission's review.

Section 404(d)(5) provides that [t]he Commission shall review” a determination to close or consolidate a post office and “shall set aside any determination” of the Postal Service that it finds to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 39 U.S.C. § 404(d)(5). But this provision also declares that chapter 7 of title 5 shall not apply to any review carried out by the Commission under this paragraph.” Id. Chapter 7 of title 5 of the United States Code, titled “Judicial Review,” is the part of the APA that provides a cause of action for judicial review. Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 185 (D.C.Cir.2006); see Bond v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2355, 2363, 180 L.Ed.2d 269 (2011). The chapter entitles a person aggrieved by agency action to “judicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 cases
  • Fed. Express Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 8, 2022
    ...kind of ‘extreme’ error that would justify reliance on the Leedom v. Kyne exception." 589 F.3d at 449 ; see Mittleman v. Postal Regul. Comm'n , 757 F.3d 300, 307 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (emphasizing that ultra vires review is "quite narrow" in case where statute withheld only APA review). To that ......
  • Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. U.S. Abilityone Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • September 30, 2019
    ...found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’ " Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n , 757 F.3d 300, 304 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ). § 706 additionally authorizes courts to set aside agency action that is take......
  • U.S. Ass'n of Reptile Keepers, Inc. v. Jewell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 12, 2015
    ...congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.” Id.(quotation marks omitted); see alsoMittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n,757 F.3d 300, 306 (D.C.Cir.2014)(“We will not infer a statutory repeal unless the later statute expressly contradicts the original act or unless......
  • Pennsylvania v. DeJoy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 28, 2020
    ......'s Office, Philadelphia, PA, for United States Postal Service. MEMORANDUM Gerald Austin McHugh, United States ... Service seek an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission (hereafter, "the Commission") and that a public ... Postal Service for claims like this one, see Mittleman v. Postal Regul. Comm'n , 757 F.3d 300, 305 (D.C. Cir. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CONSTRAINING THE STATUTORY PRESIDENT.
    • United States
    • September 1, 2020
    ...that nonstatutory review "represents a more difficult course" than "review under the APA"). (487.) Mittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n, 757 F.3d 300, 307 (D.C. Cir. 2014); see also John F. Duffy, Administrative Common Law in Judicial Review, 77 TEX. L. REV. 113, 149 (1998); Kovacs, Reveal......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT