Keerut Singh v. USPS , 713 F. App'x 661 ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEERUT SINGH, No. 17-35571
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00233-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Keerut Singh appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and Privacy Act action arising out of
requests for records relating to his employment and associated investigations and
background checks. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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). Singh’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990
(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (summary judgment in FOIA cases); Louis v. Dep’t of
Labor, 419 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment in Privacy Act
cases). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Singh failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the United States Postal
Service had not conducted an adequate search for responsive documents. See 5
U.S.C. § 552a(b) (conditions of disclosure under the Privacy Act); Hamdan v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth requirements
for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents under FOIA); Lane v. Dep’t
of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2008) (adequacy of search for documents
under the Privacy Act), overruled in part on other grounds by Animal Legal Def.
Fund, 836 F.3d at 990.
Because Singh submitted arguments in his opposition to defendant’s motion
for summary judgment, the district court did not err by denying Singh’s request for
oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 (district court may decide motions without
oral argument); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998) (litigants
cannot demonstrate prejudice for denial of oral argument where they had an
2 17-35571
adequate opportunity to submit evidence and argument on the papers in opposition
to summary judgment).
We reject as unsupported by the record Singh’s contention that the district
judge and U.S. Attorney’s Office engaged in misconduct.
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-35571