22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4c5,MEMORANDUM Willaim Eisen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene in a Freedom of Information Act action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the denial of intervention as of right. Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 896 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm. The district court properly denied Ei-sen’s motion for intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) because Eisen failed to demonstrate a significant protect-able interest in the action. See id. at 897 (setting forth four-part test for determining intervention as of right, and explaining that to demonstrate a significant protecta-ble interest, the proposed intervener “must establish that the interest is protect-able under some law and that there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue”); United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (“The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing that all the requirements for intervention have been met.”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4f2,

MEMORANDUM

Willaim Eisen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene in a Freedom of Information Act action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the denial of intervention as of right. Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 896 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Ei-sen’s motion for intervention as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2) because Eisen failed to demonstrate a significant protect-able interest in the action. See id. at 897 (setting forth four-part test for determining intervention as of right, and explaining that to demonstrate a significant protecta-ble interest, the proposed intervener “must establish that the interest is protect-able under some law and that there is a relationship between the legally protected interest and the claims at issue”); United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir.2004) (“The party seeking to intervene bears the burden of showing that all the requirements for intervention have been met.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.