Case ID: f-appx_479/html/0085-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth Lee ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; United States Department of State, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15094.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 28, 2012.
    Kenneth Lee Allen, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Brigham John Bowen, Esquire, Helen L. Gilbert, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kenneth Lee Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising from the denial of his request for information from defendants regarding President Barack Obama and “Barry Soe-toro.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Cal. State Foster Parent Ass’n v. Wagner, 624 F.3d 974, 978 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Allen’s FOIA claims because, even assuming the public’s interest in disclosure was at stake, Allen failed to comply with agency regulations requiring Allen to include the requisite third-party authorization. See United States v. Steele (In re Steele), 799 F.2d 461, 466 (9th Cir.1986) (“Where no attempt to comply fully with agency procedures has been made, the courts will assert their lack of jurisdiction under the exhaustion doctrine.”); 6 C.F.R. § 5.3(a) (requirement that a FOIA request for information regarding living third parties must include a written authorization signed by that individual permitting disclosure of records); 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(a) (same).

Allen’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.