Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial
Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial
1 Page 1 of 28
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________
Michigan.
1
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.2 Page 2 of 28
U.S.C. §1331 and 5 U.S.C. §552 because the Complaint states a claim that
BACKGROUND FACTS
subdivision, sought to change the zip code. The builder ultimately initiated
litigation against the United States Postal Service (USPS) in an attempt to change
2
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.3 Page 3 of 28
9. As the USPS itself has recognized, “For many Americans, their ZIP
Code provides not just a community boundary of some kind, but … an attribute of
their identity. ZIP Codes may mark a place as home or reflect the perceived
identity of a town or neighborhood. In some areas, your ZIP Code can be used to
determine everything from the value of your property to the school your children
attend.”
10. Indeed, the USPS has “calculated the socio-economic benefits of the
ZIP Code as an organizing and enabling system.” Its report “determined the ZIP
11. USPS has developed a “ZIP Code Boundary Review Process” that
days. If a district manager rejects the request, the process provides for an appeal to
3
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.4 Page 4 of 28
12. The process for considering requests from community groups for ZIP
Code changes dates to March 1991. On November 18, 1999, senior USPS officials
13. The directive stressed that, "just saying no" does not make identity
issues go away. In fact, growth and the increasing use of ZIP Codes as database
links and demographic tools tend to make them worse over time. Under USPS
USPS is to “offer it, apply the customer survey process, and move on.” Requests
can be denied, but only based on appropriate, objective reasons that are consistent
concerns. “The objective is to find ways to say ‘yes,’ not excuses for
saying ‘no.’" The USPS is not to deny a request out of concern that "other
communities will want the same thing." The USPS has recognized that “customers
measure the Postal Service by its impact on their daily lives. When mailing
4
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.5 Page 5 of 28
associations, even when caused by third-party actions, they are perceived as ‘bad
change from 48198 to the bordering zip code of 48105 on November 23, 2015.
school district and is located significantly closer to the Ann Arbor Green Road post
office than the Ypsilanti post office for purposes of picking up undelivered mail
and packages.
Glennborough that are further from Ann Arbor, already have the 48105 zip code,
so it would not become an undue burden for the Ann Arbor post office to serve this
18. The Zip Code Boundary Review Process requires the District
Manager to advise the proponent, in writing, of specific reasons for the denial of
19. Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s request on January 8, 2016. The letter
failed to provide specific reasons for the denial of the zip code change, as required
5
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.6 Page 6 of 28
20. Plaintiff appealed the decision on February 16, 2016. It argued that it
was not given the opportunity to discuss the request, was not given information
regarding the metrics used to deny the request, and it was not advised of the appeal
Review Process.
21. Per the Zip Code Boundary Review Process policy, Defendant should
have responded to the appeal within 60 days. It did not. The appeal was ultimately
22. Upon receiving the denial of the appeal, Plaintiff re-applied for the zip
code change on November 16, 2016, including all of the information required by
the Zip Code Boundary Review Process, including a letter of support from the
stating that the letter was a response to their request for zip code change of May
17, 2017. There had been no request from the Plaintiff in May of 2017.
boundary has been accommodated, additional requests to amend that boundary will
6
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.7 Page 7 of 28
25. The denial of Plaintiff’s zip code change request was not an
accommodation, and the last arguable accommodation Plaintiff did receive was in
(FOIA) regarding the denial of the zip code change. Defendant replied on March
23, 2018, generically citing exemptions under 5 USC §552(b)(3) and 5 USC
§552(b)(5) and refused to provide any of the requested documents. (Ex. B).
27. Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 27, 2018. Nearly one
year later, on March 7, 2019, Defendant provided a partial response to the appeal
and sent 152 pages to Plaintiff, 32 of those pages having information that was
as to the reasoning why the zip code change was denied. In addition, the majority
records provided from USPS are documents that were created by Plaintiff,
failing to reply to the FOIA request within 20 days after receipt of such request and
7
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.8 Page 8 of 28
failing to provide a reason for the denial of the initial request. To date, Defendant
has failed to complete its response to the FOIA, with no additional information
COUNT I
FREEDOM OF INFORMATIONACT VIOLATION 5 U.S.C. § 552
replied with a denial on March 23, 2018, 35 working days after the receipt of
the request. In its reply, Defendant failed to provide reasons for the denial of the
7, 2019, more than one year after receipt of the request. However, Defendant
failed to supplement this response and has never completely replied to the
make a determination with respect to any appeal within twenty days after the
8
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.9 Page 9 of 28
36. Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 27, 2018. On July 13,
2018, Defendant informed Plaintiff that its request qualified under “unusual
response, more than 300 days after Plaintiff filed its appeal.
that we are continuing to process your request. The remaining documents will
38. Defendants’ actions, and the actions of its employees, were arbitrary
and capricious.
COUNT II
BREACH OF STIPULATED CONSENT JUDGMENT
“‘Superior Township, Michigan 48198’ as an authorized last line of address for all
42. Defendant has failed to honor the Consent Judgment by not offering
COUNT III
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
44. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Postal Service’s decision that
46. Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the people
47.That right extends to the right to petition administrative agencies and all
48.On information and belief, there is no law or regulation allowing the postal
service to bar citizens from bringing grievances before the postal service for
decision. Any such law or regulation would violate the First Amendment.
10
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.11 Page 11 of 28
demonstrates that the Defendant’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and that
RELIEF REQUESTED
following relief:
withholding.
5. A declaratory judgment that Plaintiff may petition the Postal Service for
11
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.12 Page 12 of 28
ASSOCIATION by and through its counsel, SCHENK & BRUETSCH, PLC, and
does hereby demand a trial by jury in the above entitled cause of action.
12
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.13 Page 13 of 28
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.14 Page 14 of 28
I.INITEDSTATESDTSTRICTCOTIRT
EASTERIIiDISTRICT OF I,IICHIGAN
SOUT}IER\ DIVISION
Defendant.
of its cr.rrrent
lastiine of address,
"Ypsilanti.lvlichigan48198."
2. J l l g n n rti ec' i (" o-' --.t l br.entrv of thi s Order. apd the entry Of t hiS O r der ,
delivernraii addressed
to PtaintiiT's
ol to theresidents ol createa rieht to
ol Clennborough,
danrages
if nrail is rcturnedto senclcr'. r
..
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG
g@'- ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.15 Page 15 of 28
3' Plainrifrsand tlteir heirs.
execriiors. acrrrnistraiors.
successors or assigns
acceprtlre tern:sa'd co.ditions
of'this orc{eri, tuii setrrement
and satisfactionof any
and
ail claiins'deurands'rights
a'd causes of'acrio'or'rvharsoever r<i'dand nature,whichthey
may have or hereatieracqtiire
againstDei'e.dant,irs agents,servants
and emproyees, on
accountof the samesubject
matterthatgaveriseto this rar.vsuit.
FionorablePctricl<.]. DLrgd;
UnitetjSraiesDistriut Court Judge
Approved fbr entry:
CONLIN,McKENNEY& PHILBRTCI(. Approved tbl entry:
P.C SAUL A, GREEN, United States
for plaintilfs
Attorneys Attorne-y
Attorneysfbr D.efendant
EXHIBIT B
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.17 Page 17 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.18 Page 18 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.19 Page 19 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.20 Page 20 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.21 Page 21 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.22 Page 22 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.23 Page 23 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.24 Page 24 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.25 Page 25 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.26 Page 26 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.27 Page 27 of 28
Case 3:20-cv-12526-RHC-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 09/15/20 PageID.28 Page 28 of 28