Jesus Estevez v. US Attorney's Office

Opinion

1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED 2 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018 4 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 5 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 6 JESUS ADOLFO ESTEVEZ, AKA Jesus No. 18-55161 Estevez, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02941-AJB-JLB Petitioner-Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; et al., Respondents-Appellees. 7 8 Appeal from the United States District Court 9 for the Southern District of California 10 Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding 11 12 Submitted August 15, 2018** 13 14 Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 15 16 California state prisoner Jesus Adolfo Estevez, AKA Jesus Estevez, appeals 17 pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his Freedom of Information * 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). Estevez’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. 1 Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his request for documents. We have 2 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund 3 v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 988-89 (2016) (en banc) (summary 4 judgment in FOIA cases); Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 5 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary judgment). We 6 affirm.

7 The district court properly granted summary judgment on Estevez’s FOIA 8 requests because defendants’ declarations were reasonably detailed and showed 9 that defendants “conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant 10 documents.” Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir.

11 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth requirements 12 for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents).

13 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 14 in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

15 Estevez’s requests for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening and 16 reply briefs, are denied.

17 Estevez’s motion to file records under seal (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.

18 AFFIRMED.

2 18-55161