Singh v. United States Postal Service

713 F. App'x 661

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 23, 2018
• Docket: 17-35571
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 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 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.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.