Jackson v. Social Security Administration

Ninth Circuit

Jackson v. Social Security Administration

536 F. App'x 695

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2013

Docket11-17721

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 536 F. App'x 695 (Jackson v. Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Social Security Administration, 536 F. App'x 695 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Curtis Renee Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the Privacy Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Watkins v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Prat., 643 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s FOIA claim because the record demonstrates that defendant conducted an adequate search. See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1995) (affidavits are sufficient to demonstrate the adequacy of a search if they are detailed, nonconclusory, and not impugned by evidence of bad faith).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s Privacy Act claim because Jackson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s failure to maintain his records led to an adverse action by defendant. See Houlihan v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 909 F.2d 383, 384-85 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (to bring a claim against an agency under the Privacy Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection between the failure to maintain records and an adverse action by the agency).

Denial of Jackson’s untimely motion for an extension of time to oppose summary judgment was proper because Jackson failed to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1178 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth the standard of review); Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth requirements under former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Curtis Renee Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the Privacy Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Watkins v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border Prat., 643 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s FOIA claim because the record demonstrates that defendant conducted an adequate search. See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir.1995) (affidavits are sufficient to demonstrate the adequacy of a search if they are detailed, nonconclusory, and not impugned by evidence of bad faith).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s Privacy Act claim because Jackson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s failure to maintain his records led to an adverse action by defendant. See Houlihan v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 909 F.2d 383, 384-85 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (to bring a claim against an agency under the Privacy Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection between the failure to maintain records and an adverse action by the agency).

Denial of Jackson’s untimely motion for an extension of time to oppose summary judgment was proper because Jackson failed to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1178 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth the standard of review); Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth requirements under former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f)).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 F. App'x 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-social-security-administration-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack