NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER J. VERBIL, No. 15-15337
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00661-PSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. COAST GUARD, District Eleven
Commander; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Paul S. Grewal, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 8, 2017***
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Christopher J. Verbil, a former volunteer member of the United States Coast
Guard Auxiliary, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Verbil’s
request for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, is denied.
action challenging the Auxiliary’s disenrollment decision. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both summary judgment and the
district court’s evaluation of an agency’s action. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water
Auth. v. Locke, 776 F.3d 971, 991 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Verbil’s claim
under the Administrative Procedure Act because Verbil failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants lacked a reasonable basis to
disenroll Verbil. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (the reviewing court must uphold an
agency action unless it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law”). The Auxiliary’s regulations granted the
Director discretion to disenroll members for cause and did not require any
particular form of an investigation.
The district court properly concluded that Verbil’s due process rights were
not violated because Verbil did not have a property interest in his position as a
volunteer with the Auxiliary. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B) (the reviewing court must
uphold an agency action unless it was “contrary to constitutional right, power,
privilege, or immunity”); Hyland v. Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, 1140-41 (9th Cir.
1992) (volunteer status does not generally amount to a constitutionally protected
property interest).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider extra-
2 15-15337
record evidence submitted by Verbil because, as a general rule, “courts reviewing
an agency decision are limited to the administrative record,” and Verbil failed to
show that any of the exceptions to the rule applied. See Lands Council v. Powell,
395 F.3d 1019, 1029-30 & n.11 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining the general rule regarding the scope of review and exceptions); San
Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Auth., 776 F.3d at 992-93 (recognizing limited
exceptions for considering extra-record evidence; the party seeking to admit extra-
record evidence bears the burden of demonstrating that a relevant exception
applies). Contrary to Verbil’s contention, the district court considered his
objections to the administrative record and found them either not material to the
case or not well-taken.
Verbil’s request for an order requiring the Auxiliary to conduct a new
investigation, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15337