Dennis Buckovetz v. Usdn

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS M. BUCKOVETZ, No. 15-56376
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02872-BEN-
MDD
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM*
THE NAVY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Dennis M. Buckovetz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under the
Administrative Procedures Act requesting a document be removed from his
*
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).
personnel file. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
a dismissal on the basis of mootness. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Buckovetz’s action as moot because
the Department of the Navy removed the document at issue from Buckovetz’s
personnel file and confirmed that there is no reference to it in its human resources
or Equal Employment Opportunity files. See Biodiversity Legal Found. v.
Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir. 2002) (“When a controversy no longer
exists, the case is moot.”). Buckovetz has failed to show that any exception to the
mootness doctrine applies to his action. See Pub. Utilities Comm’n of State of Cal.
v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 100 F.3d 1451, 1459-61 (9th Cir. 1996)
(discussing exceptions to the mootness doctrine).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-56376