NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN MAE POLK, No. 16-15206
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:14-cv-04667-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Susan Mae Polk, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in her Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action
arising out of her request for documents relating to an investigation of her and a
particular case file number. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d
987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Polk failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Federal Bureau of
Investigation did not conduct a reasonable search for all responsive documents.
See Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting
forth requirements for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents).
Contrary to Polk’s contentions, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying Polk’s motions to strike. See Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996,
1000 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for district court’s decision to strike under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying costs to Polk,
because the district court properly determined that Polk was not eligible for costs.
See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); Hiken v. Dep’t of Def., 836 F.3d 1037, 1042-44 (9th
Cir. 2016) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for fees and costs in a
FOIA action).
Polk’s fifth motion for an extension of time to file her reply brief (Docket
Entry No. 41) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15206