Case ID: f-appx_404/html/0233-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louis FRANCIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-16600.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2010.
    Louis Francis, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Yoshinori H.T. Himel, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant Appellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Louis Francis appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action seeking to compel an inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) into the Los Angeles Police Department’s refusal to conduct a homicide investigation after Francis’s brother disappeared. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Administrative Procedure Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because Francis failed, to rebut the presumption that the FBI’s decision not to conduct an investigation is immune from judicial review. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-33, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985).

We do not consider Francis’s contention concerning the consent decree, because it was raised for the first time on appeal and consideration is not necessary to prevent “manifest injustice.” Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir.2008).

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