Terry Darrell Smith v. U.s. Marshals Service

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRY DARRELL SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE; OFFICE
OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY OF
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-36012
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01235-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Terry Darrell Smith, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-36012 2
action arising from Smith’s request for documents relating to his extradition from
Cambodia. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s determination that a FOIA exception applies, Shannahan v. IRS,
672 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the document
and information withheld in response to Smith’s FOIA request are protected by the
deliberative process privilege. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) (exempting from
disclosure “interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not
be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency”);
Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 861 F.2d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 1988)
(“[E]xemption 5 ‘was intended to protect not simply deliberative material but also
the deliberative process of agencies.’” (citation omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment to the extent that the
government redacted the names and contact information of government agents,
employees, and third parties as release of this information “could reasonably be
expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(7)(C); see also Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 569 F.3d 964, 978-79 (9th
Cir. 2009) (concluding that the “marginal additional usefulness” of the release of

-- 2 of 3 --

11-36012 3
the names of government agents and third parties was outweighed by the privacy
interests at stake).
Smith’s request for in camera review, set forth in his briefs, is denied. See
Lion Raisins v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 354 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004) (in
camera inspection of documents withheld under a FOIA exemption should “not be
resorted to lightly” and is disfavored where “the government sustains its burden of
proof by way of its testimony or affidavits”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --