Case Name: Dennis M. BUCKOVETZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-30
Citations: 675 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 15-56376
Parties: Dennis M. BUCKOVETZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Dennis M. BUCKOVETZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-56376
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed JANUARY 30, 2017
Dennis M. Buckovetz, Pro Se
Katherine L. Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Dennis M. Buckovetz appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under the Administrative Procedures Act requesting a document be removed from his personnel file. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of mootness. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Buckovetz's action as moot because the Department of the Navy removed the document at issue from Buckovetz's personnel file and confirmed, that there is no reference to it in its human resources or Equal Employment Opportunity files. See Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th Cir. 2002) ("When a controversy no longer exists, the case is moot."). Buckovetz has failed to show that any exception to the mootness doctrine applies to his action. See Pub. Utilities Comm'n of State of Cal. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 100 F.3d 1451, 1459-61 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing exceptions to the mootness doctrine).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.