Louis Francis v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOUIS FRANCIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-16600
D.C. No. 1:06-CV-00968-AWI-
DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Louis Francis appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action seeking to compel an inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”)
into the Los Angeles Police Department’s refusal to conduct a homicide
FILED
NOV 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16600 2
investigation after Francis’s brother disappeared. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685
(9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Administrative Procedure Act
claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because Francis failed to rebut the
presumption that the FBI’s decision not to conduct an investigation is immune
from judicial review. See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-33 (1985).
We do not consider Francis’s contention concerning the consent decree,
because it was raised for the first time on appeal and consideration is not necessary
to prevent “manifest injustice.” Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips
Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --