From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shantz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 22, 2001
4 F. App'x 461 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion


4 Fed.Appx. 461 (9th Cir. 2001) Howard B. SHANTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-15422. D.C. No. CV-98-04605-CRB. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 22, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Federal prisoner appealed after the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Charles R. Breyer, J., granted summary judgment to Department of Justice (DOJ) in suit brought by prisoner under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Court of Appeals held that detailed and nonconclusory affidavits provided by DOJ regarding search for requested documents, which were not undermined by requesting party's allegations of bad faith, justified grant of summary judgment.

Affirmed. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Howard B. Shantz, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") in his action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. See Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm.

Shantz's contention that the district court erred by granting summary judgment is not persuasive. For purposes of summary judgment, affidavits describing an agency's search procedures are sufficient "if they are relatively detailed in their description of the files searched and the search procedures, and if they are nonconclusory and not impugned by evidence of bad faith." See Zemansky v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 767 F.2d 569, 573 (9th Cir.1985).

Here, although Shantz alleged bad faith on the part of the government, mere allegations that the government is withholding documents do not undermine the adequacy of the affidavits provided by the defendant. See id. Accordingly, because the affidavits provided by the DOJ are detailed and nonconclusory, the district court properly granted summary judgment.

Page 463.

We decline to consider the discovery and sanction issues raised by Shantz for the first time on appeal. See International Union of Bricklayers v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1985).

Shantz's motion to file a late reply brief is granted. The Clerk shall file Shantz's reply brief received on August 25, 2000.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Shantz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 22, 2001
4 F. App'x 461 (9th Cir. 2001)
Case details for

Shantz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

Case Details

Full title:Howard B. SHANTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 22, 2001

Citations

4 F. App'x 461 (9th Cir. 2001)