Shyam Chetal v. U.S. Department of Interior ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHYAM K. CHETAL, No. 19-15837
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-03731-EMC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 5, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Shyam K. Chetal appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his requests for
records from the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S.
*
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).
Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the BLM because
Chetal failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the BLM did
not “conduct[ ] a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”
Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); id. at 770-71 (requirements for demonstrating
adequacy of search for documents in response to a FOIA request); see also Hajro
v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1103 (9th Cir. 2016)
(after an agency produces all non-exempt documents, a FOIA claim is generally
moot because the injury has been remedied).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s post-judgment order
denying Chetal’s motion for sanctions because Chetal failed to file a new or
amended notice of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); TAAG
Linhas Aereas de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th
Cir. 1990).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Chetal’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.
Chetal’s request for sanctions and judicial notice, set forth in the reply brief,
2 19-15837
is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-15837