United States of America, on behalf of US General Services Administration v. TOM McMACKIN

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on
behalf of US General Services
Administration,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOM McMACKIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-35734
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00337-TSZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Tom McMackin appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in an unlawful detainer action brought against McMackin by the United States on
FILED
MAR 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-35734 2
behalf of the General Services Administration (“GSA”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because McMackin
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to GSA’s right to damages and
the amount of damages owed. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24
(1986) (setting forth summary judgment standard); Sprincin King St. Partners v.
Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 925 P.2d 217, 221-23 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996)
(discussing Washington unlawful detainer law and noting that commercial tenant’s
allegations of breach by landlord did not excuse failure to pay rent).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McMackin’s motion
to compel discovery of documents that he had previously requested from GSA
under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) because McMackin did not
demonstrate that he sought these documents through discovery. See Preminger v.
Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 768 n.10 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court’s discovery rulings
are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Moreover, McMackin neither asserted a
FOIA claim, nor showed that he exhausted his administrative remedies under
FOIA. See United States v. Steele (In re Steele), 799 F.2d 461, 465-66

-- 2 of 3 --

10-35734 3
(9th Cir. 1986) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies required under FOIA
before seeking judicial review deprives district court of jurisdiction).
McMackin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --