5 6 JESUS ADOLFO ESTEVEZ, AKA Jesus Estevez v. United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 1
2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 3
4
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5
6
JESUS ADOLFO ESTEVEZ, AKA Jesus
Estevez,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 18-55161
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02941-AJB-JLB
MEMORANDUM*
7
Appeal from the United States District Court 8
for the Southern District of California 9
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding 10
11
Submitted August 15, 2018**
12
13
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 14
15
California state prisoner Jesus Adolfo Estevez, AKA Jesus Estevez, appeals 16
pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his Freedom of Information 17
* 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). Estevez’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55161
Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his request for documents. We have 1
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund 2
v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 988-89 (2016) (en banc) (summary 3
judgment in FOIA cases); Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 4
670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary judgment). We 5
affirm. 6
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Estevez’s FOIA 7
requests because defendants’ declarations were reasonably detailed and showed 8
that defendants “conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant 9
documents.” Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 10
2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth requirements 11
for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents). 12
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 13
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 14
Estevez’s requests for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening and 15
reply briefs, are denied. 16
Estevez’s motion to file records under seal (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied. 17
AFFIRMED. 18

-- 2 of 2 --