Mr. Meyer remained in the post office until Mr. Briggs left because he thought Mr. Briggs might cause more trouble. Another customer remained in her car because she would have had to walk past Mr. Briggs to enter the post office. 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. By the Declarations of Ms. Kelley, Mr. Larner and Mr. Meyer, the specifics of which are not contradicted by Petitioner, Respondent has established the absence of any genuine issue of fact. Petitioner's general statement that he has done nothing but voice legitimate complaints is not sufficient to create a material factual dispute, in light of the specific facts presented by Ms. Kelley, Mr. Larner and Mr. Meyer.
Summary judgment is appropriate.
Although there is no evidence that Petitioner's conduct was violent, it was abusive, and somewhat threatening, especially to a woman running a small post office by herself. The fact that the June 4 incident involved conduct at the entrance, rather than actually inside the post office is not significant. Petitioner was shouting and using profanity to complain about post office service, and his conduct was threatening to other postal customers. The fact that Petitioner's confrontational behavior has been a continuing course of conduct is also a consideration in judging the reasonableness of the postmaster's decision. In his Petition, and in reply to the motion for summary judgment, Petitioner reasserts his complaint that someone is stealing his mail, and makes other unrelated complaints about the postmaster.