
    Susan Mae POLK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-15206
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 3, 2017
    Susan Mae Polk, Pro Se
    Neill Tseng, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jennifer S. Wang, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Susan Mae Polk, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of her request for documents relating to an investigation of her and a particular case file number. 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 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Polk failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not conduct a reasonable search for all responsive documents. See Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770-71 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth requirements for demonstrating adequacy of search for documents).

Contrary to Polk’s contentions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Polk’s motions to strike. See Nurse v. United States, 226 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for district court’s decision to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying costs to Polk, because the district court properly determined that Polk was not eligible for costs. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); Hiken v. Dep’t of Def., 836 F.3d 1037, 1042-44 (9th Cir. 2016) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for fees and costs in a FOIA action).

Polk’s fifth motion for an extension of time to file her reply brief (Docket Entry No. 41) is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     