Martin Bettwieser v. BILLY GANS, AKA William Gans, AKA Billy Gantz;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN BETTWIESER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BILLY GANS, AKA William Gans, AKA
Billy Gantz; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35631
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00493-EJL-REB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Martin Bettwieser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”) and Privacy Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d
* 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
MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-35631
987, 989-90 (9th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the United States
Postal Service because Bettwieser failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether he submitted a request under FOIA and the Privacy Act. See 39
C.F.R. § 265.7(a)(1)-(2) (2015) (describing requirements for submitting a FOIA
request); 39 C.F.R. § 266.6(a) (2015) (describing requirements for submitting a
Privacy Act request).
The district court properly dismissed the individual defendants because
individuals are not proper defendants in a FOIA or Privacy Act action. See Drake
v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 785 (9th Cir. 2011) (“FOIA does not apply to any of the
Defendants because they are all individuals, not agencies.”); Rouse v. U.S. Dep’t of
State, 567 F.3d 408, 413 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Privacy Act only permits suits
against an ‘agency.’”).
We reject as without merit Bettwieser’s contentions concerning discovery,
default judgment, the representation of defendants by the Office of United States
Attorneys, and Bivens remedies.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-35631
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --