Shaun Rosiere v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAUN ROSIERE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-16144
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00260-HG-RLP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Shaun Rosiere appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
for improper venue his action alleging violations of the Freedom of Information
Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 2001). We may
* 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
JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16144
affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thomson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055,
1057-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Rosiere’s action was proper because the district court lacked
jurisdiction over Rosiere’s FOIA complaint. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (the
district court “in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of
business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of
Columbia, has jurisdiction” to provide relief); Carter v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce,
307 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting district court’s jurisdiction under 5
U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --