Guy Heide v. Ray LaHood , 406 F. App'x 83 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-2506
    ___________
    Guy Heide,                             *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    *    Appeal from the United States
    v.                               *    District Court for the
    *    District of Minnesota.
    Ray LaHood, in his official capacity   *
    as Secretary, United States Department *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    of Transportation,                     *
    *
    Appellee.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 10, 2010
    Filed: December 16, 2010
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this action for injunctive relief under the Freedom of Information Act
    (FOIA), 
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    , Guy Heide appeals after the district court1 dismissed his
    claims as moot. Upon careful review of the record and Heide’s arguments on appeal,
    we find no basis for reversal.
    1
    The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    First, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its
    application of its Local Rule 7.1. See Silberstein v. Internal Revenue Serv., 
    16 F.3d 858
    , 860 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court has considerable leeway in application of its
    local rules; it is for district court to determine what departures from its rules may be
    overlooked); Nw. Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. Nat’l Bank, 
    354 F.3d 721
    , 725 (8th
    Cir. 2003) (standard of review). Further, we conclude that Heide’s complaint was
    properly dismissed as moot, notwithstanding his claim seeking a written finding under
    
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    (a)(4)(F), and his request for costs. See Cornucopia Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t
    of Agric., 
    560 F.3d 673
     (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of case as moot where
    agency produced responsive documents while district court case was pending; noting
    claim for fees and costs is separate from merits of action); Hastings v. Wilson, 
    516 F.3d 1055
    , 1058 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal reviewed de novo); Voinche
    v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 
    999 F.2d 962
    , 963-64 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (in
    action essentially challenging timeliness of agency’s response, concluding that
    agency’s response rendered plaintiff’s challenge moot and that review of adequacy of
    agency’s response was foreclosed by plaintiff’s failure to have first sought
    administrative review of adequacy); see also 
    5 U.S.C. § 552
    (a)(4)(F) (discussing
    written findings that ordinarily accompany court order for production of agency
    records); Phipps v. FDIC, 
    417 F.3d 1006
    , 1010 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may affirm on
    any basis supported by record). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not
    abuse its discretion in denying Heide costs. Cf. Ginter v. Internal Revenue Serv., 
    648 F.2d 469
    , 471 & n.4, 472 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (district court did not abuse its
    discretion in denying fees despite district court’s failure to hold evidentiary hearing
    or to make factual findings where sufficient information existed in the record to
    conclude that plaintiff had not shown he had substantially prevailed).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-