Jaymar Stanton Adams v. United States Customs and Border Protection; Russell Holsopple

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAYMAR STANTON ADAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PROTECTION; RUSSELL
HOLSOPPLE,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 16-15230
D.C. No. 5:14-cv-04673-BLF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15230
Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 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.

-- 2 of 2 --