Gregory Allen Franklin v. U.s. Drug Enforcement Administration; Katherine L. Myrick, Dea

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY ALLEN FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATION; KATHERINE L.
MYRICK, DEA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55570
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-03701-CBM-KK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Allen Franklin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)
action arising out of his request for investigative information related to himself and
* 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
APR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-55570
decedent Grover Tinner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d
987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Franklin
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants did not
conduct a reasonable search for responsive documents or whether defendants did
not establish that the redactions on the documents fell within a FOIA exemption
category. See Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir.
2015) (setting forth requirements for demonstrating adequacy of search for
documents); Bowen v. Food & Drug Admin., 925 F.2d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 1991)
(reasonably detailed affidavits are sufficient to establish that documents are within
FOIA exemption category). Contrary to Franklin’s contention, the district court
did conduct an in camera review of the unredacted documents.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion
for a protective order, precluding Franklin from conducting discovery absent leave
of court. See Lane v. Dep’t of Interior, 523 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A
district court has wide latitude in controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be
overturned in absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --