KEE LEE, DBA Chin’s Market and Kitchen v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEE LEE, DBA Chin’s Market and
Kitchen,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-15434
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00881-AWI-
SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Kee Lee, DBA Chin’s Market and Kitchen, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 7 U.S.C. § 2023 action seeking judicial review of
the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service’s (“FNS”)
FILED
DEC 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

final decision permanently disqualifying his store from participating in the federal
food stamp program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings.
Wong v. United States, 859 F.2d 129, 131 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lee failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the hundreds of suspicious
transactions identified by FNS did not show that Lee was trafficking in food
stamps. See 7 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3)(B) (providing for permanent disqualification
from participation in the federal food stamp program on the first occasion of
trafficking); 7 C.F.R. § 271.2 (defining trafficking as “[t]he buying, selling,
stealing, or otherwise effecting an exchange of [food stamp] benefits issued and
accessed . . . for cash or consideration other than eligible food . . . . ”); see also Kim
v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269, 1272 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The burden is placed upon
the store owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the violations did
not occur.”).
AFFIRMED.
13-15434 2

-- 2 of 2 --