Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregory Allen FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; Katherine L. Myrick, DEA, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-55570
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    Gregory Allen Franklin, Pro Se
    Jason K. Axe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory Allen Franklin, a California state 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 investigative information related to himself and decedent Grover Tinner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 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 Franklin failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants did not conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents or whether defendants did not establish that the redactions on the documents fell within a FOIA exemption category. See Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth requirements for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents); Bowen v. Food & Drug Admin., 925 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 1991) (reasonably detailed affidavits are sufficient to establish that documents are within FOIA exemption category). Contrary to Franklin’s contention, the district court did conduct an in camera review of the unredact-ed documents.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion for a protective order, precluding Franklin from conducting discovery absent leave of court. See Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be overturned in absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.