NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANNY JOSEPH FABRICANT, No. 15-17445
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00562-JAS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Danny Joseph Fabricant, a federal prisoner, 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 an informant who testified
against him at a trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
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 Fabricant
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant had not
“conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”
Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth requirements for demonstrating
adequacy of search for documents).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fabricant’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d) motion because Fabricant failed to show how allowing additional
discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Citizens Comm’n on
Human Rights v. Food & Drug Admin., 45 F.3d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting
forth standard of review and concluding that district court did not abuse discretion
in granting summary judgment in FOIA action before allowing an opportunity to
conduct additional discovery).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fabricant’s motion
for costs because Fabricant failed to establish that he was both eligible for and
entitled to costs. See Hiken v. Dep’t of Def., 836 F.3d 1037, 1042-44 (9th
2 15-17445
Cir. 2016) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for fees and costs in a
FOIA action).
All pending requests are denied, including appellant’s most-recently-filed
request to correct appellant’s name.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-17445