Leslie Kinney v. Cia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESLIE G. KINNEY, No. 17-35384
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05777-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
CIA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Leslie G. Kinney appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his request for
documents related to a specific individual that Kinney believed to be a former
Office of Strategic Services agent. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review de novo, Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836
F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the agency
provided an affidavit establishing that Exemption 1 of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1),
precludes acknowledgment of the existence of the requested documents. See
Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 774 (9th Cir. 2015) (an agency’s
invocation of a FOIA exemption is sufficient if it appears “logical” or “plausible”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Berman v. CIA, 501 F.3d 1136,
1139 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]here exists a near- blanket FOIA exemption for CIA
records” and the courts must “afford the CIA broad deference” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening briefs, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-35384