United States v. 2020-08-11 | 19-15837 | SHYAM CHETAL V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHYAM K. CHETAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15837

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-03731-EMC

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Shyam K. Chetal appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of his requests for
records from the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S.

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

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15837
Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the BLM because
Chetal failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the BLM did
not “conduct[ ] a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.”
Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); id. at 770-71 (requirements for demonstrating
adequacy of search for documents in response to a FOIA request); see also Hajro
v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 811 F.3d 1086, 1103 (9th Cir. 2016)
(after an agency produces all non-exempt documents, a FOIA claim is generally
moot because the injury has been remedied).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s post-judgment order
denying Chetal’s motion for sanctions because Chetal failed to file a new or
amended notice of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); TAAG
Linhas Aereas de Angola v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th
Cir. 1990).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Chetal’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.
Chetal’s request for sanctions and judicial notice, set forth in the reply brief,

3 19-15837
is denied.
AFFIRMED.