Search
Home
ABOUT
BOOKS
THE BADGE
WHERE THE OLD HIGHWAY HAD RUN
GUNS IN THE WORKPLACE
THE WAY IT WAS
THE POWER OF GOD
KLEIN'S C.C.W. HANDBOOK
KLEIN'S UNIFORM FIREARMS POLICY
CIRCA 1957
INSTINCT COMBAT SHOOTING
LINES OF DEFENSE
THE BEST OF CHUCK KLEIN
KLEIN FAMILY HISTORY
AMERICA'S FRAMEWORK FOR FREEDOM
ARTICLES & EDITORIALS
SELECTED, PUBLISHED EDITORIALS
EMAIL EDITORIALS
POLICE ETHICS & ISSUES
FIREARM ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS
PUBLISHED CAR STORIES AND ARTICLES
OHIO CCW CASE KLEIN vs LEIS
KLEIN'S LAWS
WOODWARD HIGH SCHOOL CLASS OF 1960
EMAIL ADDRESSES
PHOTOS
IN MEMORY
RECOLLECTIONS
WOODWARD STORIES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES H. KLEIN, JR., : CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00672
: ANNETTE KLEIN, : JUDGE HOPKINS
: ERIC HAVENS, : FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
: and :
: SHANDRA HAVENS, :
: PLAINTIFFS, :
: vs. :
: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
: MARY MITCHELL, POSTMASTER GEORGETOWN POST OFFICE, : in her official capacity,
: : and
: TERRENCE MANEY, POST OFFICE : OPERATIONS MANAGER, : in his official capacity,
: : DEFENDANTS.
:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a case about arbitrary and capricious government conduct, without evidentiary justification, selectively discriminating against Plaintiffs and denying them a service the government provides to many millions of Americans: Mail delivery to their properties. The government action is an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, and unsupported by evidence.
2. 39 U.S.C. 101(a), Postal Policy, provides for the citizens of the United States of America: The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.
3. Because the Defendant United States Postal Service (“USPS”), and its Defendant officials, refuse to deliver mail to the Plaintiffs’ properties in Brown County, Ohio, the Plaintiffs have to drive their car away from their properties in order to retrieve their daily mail. The Plaintiffs have to make a 10-mile roundtrip into Georgetown, Ohio, in order to retrieve parcels intended for them that do not fit into the mailbox USPS requires the Plaintiffs use one-quarter mile from their properties. Under present circumstances, Plaintiffs continue to suffer, and will indefinitely continue to suffer, the adverse consequences of the Defendants’ unlawful deprivation of mail delivery service to the Plaintiffs’ properties.
4. The United States Postal Service describes itself:
The United States Postal Service is an independent federal establishment, mandated to be self-financing and to serve every American community through the affordable, reliable and secure delivery of mail and packages to 167 million addresses six and often seven days a week.Those 167 million addresses do not include the Plaintiffs’ addresses in Brown County, Ohio.
5. In September 2024, the Plaintiffs (by means of written request on behalf of Plaintiff Charles H. Klein) asked that USPS deliver mail to their property. USPS had, in the past, delivered mail to their property. On October 18, 2024, the Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously, and without rational explanation and evidentiary justification, refused delivery of mail to the Plaintiffs’ addresses. Nevertheless, the Defendants deliver mail to the properties of similarly situated individuals in Brown County, Ohio.
6. The Plaintiffs’ request to USPS for mail service to their properties complies with all USPS General Guidelines and Policies for Rural Delivery.
7. USPS touts its rural mail delivery: Rural letter carriers perform a vital function in the United States Postal Service (USPS) serving thousands of families and businesses in rural and suburban areas while traveling millions of miles daily. Rural letter carriers are highly respected by the American public. This respect has been earned by many years of dedication to the Postal Service and to postal customers. During national and local emergencies, including prolonged periods of extreme weather conditions, rural carriers have demonstrated great responsibility in providing mail service to postal customers.1
8. USPS further mandates that its letter carriers: Use ingenuity and knowledge of local roads to provide as complete service as possible when portions of the route cannot be traveled with the vehicle ordinarily used. However, you are not required to provide service if it would incur excessive expense, jeopardize your safety, or require undue physical strain.2
9. Nevertheless, the Defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously, and otherwise contrary to law and without substantial evidence, excepted Plaintiffs from this beneficial and lawfully required USPS rural mail delivery. Delivering mail to Plaintiffs’ properties does not subject USPS to excessive expense, safety risk, or undue physical strain. All other vendors and services deliver to the Plaintiffs’ properties. Only USPS refuses.
10. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring that USPS deliver mail and parcels to their properties.
1 USPS Handbook PO-603, p. 1.
2 Id., p. 3.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 28 U.S.C. 1343, and 28 U.S.C. 2201. Venue is proper pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the Plaintiffs reside within the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, and Defendants are located in, and acted unlawfully in, the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division.
PARTIES
12. Plaintiffs Charles and Annette Klein reside at 6500 Hillman Ridge Road, Georgetown, Ohio, in Brown County. They are citizens of the United States and customers of the United States Postal Service. Plaintiffs seek a mailbox placement where their properties line meets the public Hillman Ridge Road.
13. Plaintiffs Eric and Shandra Havens reside at 6510 Hillman Ridge Road. They are citizens of the United States and customers of the United States Postal Service. Plaintiffs Eric and Shandra Havens seek the same mailbox placement as Plaintiffs Charles and Annette Klein. 14. Defendant United States Postal Service is an agency of the government of the United States of America and is duly bound to follow the law in the nation including providing equal service to the Plaintiffs. USPS operates in Brown County, Ohio.
15. Defendant Mary Mitchell is Postmaster Georgetown Post Office and is responsible for USPS compliance with law with regard to delivery of mail to the Plaintiffs.
16. Defendant is a Post Office Operations Manager and is responsible for USPS compliance with law with regard to delivery of mail to the Plaintiffs.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
17. In April 2015, USPS (Postal Area Supervisor Lisa Chapman-Walters, A/MPOO Area 3, Lawrenceburg Post Office) expressly approved Plaintiff Klein’s request to place his mailbox at the end of Klein’s driveway at 6500 Hillman Ridge Road. Postal Area Supervisor Chapman-Walters informed Chuck:
I am in receipt of your recent email regarding the movement of your mailbox on Hillman Ridge Road. After discussing the issue with the current Postmaster in Georgetown, the placement of your mailbox will be permitted at the end of your driveway on 6500 Hillman. In addition, you will not be required to retain a letter from Pleasant Township Trustees nor will you be required to create a turn-around for the mail carrier.
In closing, I would like to extend an apology for the inconvenience this issue may have given you. I would further like to add if there are any additional issues please do not hesitate to call on me.
18. USPS then delivered mail to Plaintiff Klein and his wife until a subsequent one-time confrontation between one of Klein’s former neighbors and the USPS carrier. Only after that unrelated conflict, and seemingly in retaliation, the local Postmaster at the time (Scott Compton) created this pretext for delivery refusal to Plaintiff Klein (although Mr. Compton had previously informed Klein that Compton did not consider the road unsafe):
It's because of the width of the road, which is a single lane road and the carrier has been having trouble going down that driveway. Well he, he meets somebody, somebody, another neighbor down there and they'd get a big fight and nobody will back up and nobody will move and it just, it's, it just got old and she um, neighbor went around him, scratched her car on a tree branch or something then to try to give us the bill and we're not allowed to back-up our vehicles whatsoever, but it's just a mess down there and yeah, it does have to come out to the road.
19. Plaintiff Klein observed the unlawful conduct of his neighbor. Upon information and belief, the neighbor's conduct violated Ohio law but USPS and its officials did not report the neighbor's unlawful conduct to law enforcement agencies. Instead, USPS and its officials unlawfully deprived Klein of mail delivery service.
20. In October 2017, USPS stopped delivery of mail to Plaintiff Klein and his wife at 6500 Hillman Ridge Road. The USPS mail carrier at the time told Klein that the mail carrier had not had any accidents on the road, but he intimated that the former neighbor might continue to cause problems. The mail carrier expressed to Klein that he delivered mail on many similar narrow roads. Klein now has to drive .4 mile up the road from his home to retrieve his mail and has a 10-mile round-trip journey into Georgetown, Ohio, to retrieve parcels. Under USPS unlawful threat to have all his mail designated "Return to Sender" if he did not relocate his mailbox 0.4 mile up Hillman Ridge Road, Klein has involuntarily acquiesced.
21. The Defendants have not determined that the subject portion of Hillman Ridge Road has hazardous conditions.
22. Since the time USPS first concluded the Plaintiffs’ road was safe, but then ceased delivery of Plaintiffs’ mail to their properties, the road was repaved, pull-overs were added, trees and brush have been cleared, and the road is even safer than when USPS first authorized mail delivery to Klein’s property in 2015.
23. There are no reported vehicular accidents in the road's history. FedEx, UPS, and other delivery vehicles continue to deliver to Klein’s home.
24. The temporary Postmaster this past summer informed Klein that he could restore the mailbox to the end of his driveway. The temporary Postmaster also said he did not consider the road unsafe but subsequently claimed his carrier refused to travel the subject portion of the road and did not deliver mail to Klein until, under duress, Klein moved the mailbox back to the distant location. The temporary Postmaster claimed he was without authority to rectify the USPS delivery refusal
. 25. USPS has never provided Klein a professionally-supported analytic evidence-based traffic engineering report justifying the USPS delivery refusal. There are many USPS customers in Brown County and elsewhere who are similarly-situated to the Plaintiffs, and living on comparable roads, who USPS lawfully serves. USPS has treated the Plaintiffs in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
26. Further evidencing the arbitrary and capricious nature of the USPS conduct, all other providers and vendors deliver to Plaintiffs’ properties. Only USPS refuses. USPS first concluded the road is safe and then, after road improvements, summarily and pretextually alleged that the road is unsafe. In fact, the road is safe and Plaintiffs are lawfully entitled to equal mail service.
27. Plaintiff Klein has lived in other rural areas with narrow roads and USPS delivered mail to all the mailboxes on those roads. 28. The portion of Hillman Ridge Road in dispute in this matter includes two professionally excavated and maintained pullovers and a designated turn-around.
29. Other roads in Brown County, Ohio, where USPS delivers mail have fewer or no professionally maintained pullovers, and no designated turn-around. Plaintiff Charles Klein has personally viewed some of the similarly-situated roads in Brown County, Ohio, where the Defendants do provide mail delivery service to properties on those roads. 30. In 2024, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). The federal judiciary is no longer required to defer to agency rulemaking and interpretations. It is unknown to Plaintiffs why the Defendants will not deliver mail to the Plaintiffs’ properties but, as this Court reviews and adjudicates the Defendants’ action, the Court is not required to defer to the Defendants’ interpretation of their obligations to provide mail delivery service to Plaintiffs.
COUNT I
Deprivation of Plaintiffs’ Right to “Class of One” Equal Protection 31. Plaintiffs incorporate the prior paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully restated.
32. The Defendants have intentionally treated the Plaintiffs differently than similarly situated residents of Brown County, Ohio, and there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.
33. The purpose of equal protection in the United States Constitution is to secure every person against intentional and arbitrary discrimination by government agents
. 34. The Defendants intentionally refuse mail delivery service to Plaintiffs’ properties even though Defendants deliver mail to similarly situated properties in Brown County, Ohio.
35. The Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their right to “class of one” equal protection.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment against the Defendants and issue the following forms of relief: 36. A permanent injunction enjoining all the Defendants from further violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to receive USPS mail delivery at their properties.
37. A declaratory judgment establishing the Plaintiffs’ right under law to receive USPS mail delivery at their properties. 38. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees and costs.
39. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Richard Ganulin Richard Ganulin, Esq. Attorney at Law 3662 Kendall Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
(513) 405-6696
rganulin@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This certifies that the foregoing First Amended Complaint was served on March 9, 2025 upon all counsel of record via the Court’s electronic notification system and/or via electronic mail. Margaret Castro (0078968)
Assistant United States Attorney
221 East Fourth Street, Suite 400
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Office: (513) 684-3125
Fax: (513) 684-6972
E-mail: Margaret.Castro@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants
/s/ Richard Ganulin