Case Name: FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION, an agency of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William EISEN, Applicant-in-intervention, Appellant, United States Postal Service, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-25
Citations: 543 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 12-16165
Parties: FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION, an agency of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William EISEN, Applicant-in-intervention, Appellant, United States Postal Service, Defendant.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 730–731

Head Matter:
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION, an agency of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William EISEN, Applicant-in-intervention, Appellant, United States Postal Service, Defendant.
No. 12-16165.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 25, 2013.
Zackery P. Morazzini, Esquire, General Counsel, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (SAC), Heather Rowan, Counsel, Gary Scott Winuk, California Fair Political Practices Commission, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William Eisen, Torrance, CA, pro se, for Appellant.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Willaim Eisen appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to intervene in a Freedom of Information Act action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of intervention as of right. Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass'n, 647 F.3d 893, 896 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Ei-sen's motion for intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) because Eisen failed to demonstrate a significant protect-able interest in the action. See id. at 897 (setting forth four-part test for determining intervention as of right, and explaining that to demonstrate a significant protecta-ble interest, the proposed intervener "must establish that the interest is protect-able under some law and that there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue"); United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) ("The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing that all the requirements for intervention have been met.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.