Milan Fargo v. Usdhs ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 12 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NASSIR NAZAROVICH KOURBANOV,                    No. 19-15560
    AKA Milan F. Fargo, AKA Milan Frank
    Fargo,                                          D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00024
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
    SECURITY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
    Ramona V. Manglona, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 6, 2020**
    Before:      BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
    Nassir Nazarovich Kourbanov, AKA Milan F. Fargo, AKA Milan Frank
    Fargo, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action
    seeking mandamus relief and disclosure of records under the Freedom of
    *
    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).
    Information Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
    review de novo. Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l, 
    854 F.3d 1088
    , 1093 (9th Cir. 2017)
    (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Watison v. Carter, 
    668 F.3d 1108
    , 1112
    (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); In re Gallagher,
    
    548 F.3d 713
    , 716 (9th Cir. 2008) (denial of mandamus). We affirm.
    The district court properly denied Fargo’s mandamus claims because Fargo
    failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. See
    Patel v. Reno, 
    134 F.3d 929
    , 931 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that mandamus is an
    “extraordinary remedy” and setting forth the requirements for mandamus relief).
    The district court properly dismissed Fargo’s claims related to his FOIA
    request because Fargo failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See In re Steele,
    
    799 F.2d 461
    , 465 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Exhaustion of . . . administrative remedies is
    required under the FOIA before that party can seek judicial review.”).
    We reject as meritless Fargo’s contentions that the district court erred by
    consolidating his cases and by refusing to adjudicate the history of his immigration
    status dating back to 2002.
    We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
    States v. Elias, 
    921 F.2d 870
    , 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
    All pending motions are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   19-15560
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-15560

Filed Date: 5/12/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/12/2020