Steve Valentinetti v. Usdot ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVE VALENTINETTI, No. 18-72706
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Steven Valentinetti petitions pro se for review of the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration’s (“FMCSA”) final order denying his request for an
upgraded transportation safety rating and its subsequent order dismissing his
petition for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction to review specified final orders
*
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).
of the Secretary of Transportation under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342(3)(A).
Multistar Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 707 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.
2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2344; Samuel B. Franklin & Co. v. SEC, 290 F.2d 719,
725 (9th Cir. 1961) (en banc). We review orders of the FMCSA under the
Administrative Procedure Act and may set aside an agency conclusion only if it is
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). We deny the petition.
Valentinetti has not demonstrated that the FMCSA’s final order is arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See
Barnes v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Review
under the arbitrary and capricious standard is narrow, and we do not substitute our
judgment for that of the agency. An agency decision will be upheld as long as
there is a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made.”
(citations omitted)).
To the extent Valentinetti seeks to raise in the opening brief an equal
protection claim on the basis of alleged racial discrimination, that claim was not
sufficiently developed in the administrative record and we decline to review it. See
Greenwood v. Federal Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d 971, 978 (9th Cir. 1994)
(declining to review an equal protection challenge where the administrative record
was insufficient to permit informed judicial evaluation of the issue raised).
2 18-72706
Valentinetti has waived any challenge to the FMCSA’s order dismissing his
petition for reconsideration because he failed to address that order in his opening
brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72706