Texte intégral
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KENNETH LEE ALLEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15094
D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00373-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Lee Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising from the
denial of his request for information from defendants regarding President Barack
FILED
JUL 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
11-15094 2
Obama and “Barry Soetoro.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Cal. State Foster Parent Ass’n v. Wagner, 624 F.3d 974, 978 (9th
Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Allen’s FOIA claims because, even
assuming the public’s interest in disclosure was at stake, Allen failed to comply
with agency regulations requiring Allen to include the requisite third-party
authorization. See United States v. Steele (In re Steele), 799 F.2d 461, 466 (9th
Cir. 1986) (“Where no attempt to comply fully with agency procedures has been
made, the courts will assert their lack of jurisdiction under the exhaustion
doctrine.”); 6 C.F.R. § 5.3(a) (requirement that a FOIA request for information
regarding living third parties must include a written authorization signed by that
individual permitting disclosure of records); 22 C.F.R. § 171.12(a) (same).
Allen’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --