United States v. 2020-11-13 | 19-16992 | CHRISTOPHER RENFRO V. SSA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER RENFRO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION;
et al.,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 19-16992

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00007-AWI-EPG

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Christopher Renfro appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
mandamus action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d

*
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).
FILED

NOV 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16992
1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (determination of whether the elements for mandamus
relief are satisfied). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Renfro’s petition for writ of mandamus
because Renfro failed to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. See
Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements for
mandamus relief and stating that “[i]f a plaintiff has no legal entitlement to the
relief sought, a ‘clear and certain’ claim cannot exist, and the writ will not lie”);
20 C.F.R. § 416.1413 (procedures for requesting reconsideration of Social Security
Administration’s (“SSA”) initial determination of benefits and for opportunity to
review the file).
We reject as without merit Renfro’s contention that he is entitled to the
names and other identifying information of SSA employees.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.