Jackson v. Social Security Administration

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CURTIS RENEE JACKSON, No. 11-17721
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02578-JW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Ware, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Curtis Renee Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging violations of the Freedom
of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the Privacy Act. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Watkins v. U.S. Bureau of Customs & Border
Prot., 643 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s FOIA
claim because the record demonstrates that defendant conducted an adequate
search. See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d 1325, 1328 (9th
Cir. 1995) (affidavits are sufficient to demonstrate the adequacy of a search if they
are detailed, nonconclusory, and not impugned by evidence of bad faith).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jackson’s Privacy
Act claim because Jackson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendant’s failure to maintain his records led to an adverse action by
defendant. See Houlihan v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 909 F.2d 383, 384-85 (9th Cir.
1990) (per curiam) (to bring a claim against an agency under the Privacy Act, a
plaintiff must demonstrate a causal connection between the failure to maintain
records and an adverse action by the agency).
Denial of Jackson’s untimely motion for an extension of time to oppose
summary judgment was proper because Jackson failed to satisfy the requirements
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). See Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection
Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth the standard of
review); Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir.
2 11-17721
2006) (setting forth requirements under former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-17721