Whether the Ninth Circuit failed to comply with its own precedents under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 and 552a

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit failed to comply with its own precedents under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 and 552a thus resulting in a severe departure from the typical course of judicial proceedings? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit failed to comply with the proper standard for issuing a memorandum? i STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Ninth Circuit affirmed on February 23, 2018. Petitioner filed a timely petition for rehearing. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing on July 02, 2018. The writ of certiorari is timely. See Sup. Ct. R. 13(8). This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254. STATEMENT OF CASE Keerut Singh is a former employee of the United States Postal Service (USPS). In late 2016, he filed multiple requests with USPS under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act requesting records relating to his employment as a non-career mail carrier. The United States Postal Service is divided into three separate branches. The Postal Service, the Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Singh submitted requests to all three branches. USPS did not provide the records Singh requested. Singh appealed through the administrative processes of all three branches. Unsatisfied with USPS’s responses, he filed suit in the Western District of Washington at Seattle. He alleged, inter alia, that USPS failed to conduct a reasonable search, and that it unlawfully and purposely withheld records under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 and 552a. The district 1 court had jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 552(a)(4)(B) and 552a(g)(1)(D). The district court granted USPS’s motion for summary judgment finding that the government conducted a reasonable search. Singh filed a timely appeal. The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Singh filed a large opening brief. He followed that up with a lengthy reply brief. In these briefs, it was apparent that USPS did not conduct a reasonable search. It was also apparent that there was a material issue of fact. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in an extremely short memorandum without any elaboration. The Ninth Circuit did not address the merits of the case. It did not reach a legal determination. It also did not justify its use of a memorandum in this case. ARGUMENT A. Legal Standard The Ninth Circuit is committed to a pure de novo standard of review in FOIA cases. See Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). A similar standard applies to Privacy Act cases. Louis v. Dep’t of Labor, 419 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2005). An appellate de novo review is “[a]n appeal in which the appellate court uses the trial court’s record but reviews the evidence 2 and law without deference to the trial court’s rulings.” See appeal de novo, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014). This does not differ from the Ninth Circuit’s own definition of de novo. A de novo review is viewed “from the same position as the district court.” Lawrence v. Dep’t of Interior, 525 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2008). The matter is considered anew, as if there was no decision below. Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006). See Barrientos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 633 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2011) (reviewing a decision de novo . “with no deference given to the district court's decision.”). A memorandum may only be issued in rare circumstances when an appeal is frivolous, or a perfunctory decision is appropriate because it “follows a well-established legal principle or does not relate to any point of law.” See memorandum opinion, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014). B. Reasons For Granting Writ This Court does not reach the merits. The main issue before the Court is simple and can be resolved with summary disposition. The Ninth Circuit failed to comply with its own standard of review in FOIA and Privacy Act cases. Singh’s case is not frivolous, and the Ninth Circuit failed to address the issues raised in his briefing. The Ninth