Buckovetz v. United States Department of the Navy
Dennis M. BUCKOVETZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant-Appellee
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Roger T. Benitez (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen S. Trott (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, Atsushi W. Tashima
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNIS M. BUCKOVETZ, No. 15-56376 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02872-BEN- MDD v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM* THE NAVY, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Dennis M. Buckovetz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under the Administrative Procedures Act requesting a document be removed from his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). personnel file. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of mootness. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Buckovetz’s action as moot because the Department of the Navy removed the document at issue from Buckovetz’s personnel file and confirmed that there is no reference to it in its human resources or Equal Employment Opportunity files. See Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir. 2002) (“When a controversy no longer exists, the case is moot.”). Buckovetz has failed to show that any exception to the mootness doctrine applies to his action. See Pub. Utilities Comm’n of State of Cal.
v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 100 F.3d 1451, 1459-61 (9th Cir. 1996)
(discussing exceptions to the mootness doctrine).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-56376