Case Name: Jaymar Stanton ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; Russell Holsopple, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-24
Citations: 689 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 16-15230
Parties: Jaymar Stanton ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; Russell Holsopple, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Jaymar Stanton ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; Russell Holsopple, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 16-15230
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Jaymar Stanton Adams, Pro Se
Susan B. Gray, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jaymar Stanton Adams appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment on his petition for writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 967, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary judgment); Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (denial of mandamus). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Adams's petition for writ of mandamus because Adams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his claim was "clear and certain" and whether there was "no other adequate remedy" available. See Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements for mandamus relief).
Adams's request to transfer this matter to the District of South Dakota, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.