Rouse
Rouse v. Dost
Opinion
Opinion
discussion, however, is limited to his accuracy claims. Because Rouse concedes that he received a copy of his full embassy file, his access claims are moot.1 1 “[P]articular violations of the [Privacy] Act [are linked] to particular remedies in a specific and detailed manner.” Cell. Assocs., Inc. v. Nat’l Insts. of Health, 579 F.2d 1155, 1158 (9th Cir. 1978). With respect to suits for access violations, the only remedy available is for the court to “enjoin ROUSE v. UNITED STATES DEP’T OF STATE 6105 We review the district court’s dismissal of Rouse’s claims de novo, see Weber v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 521 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008), accepting “all material allegations of the complaint” as true and construing “all reasonable infer- ences” in favor of the nonmoving party, Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). >
At page 15727 of the slip opinion, line 4, delete the two sentences and footnotes following the sentence concluding with < § 652E. >
At page 15727 of the slip opinion, line 9, delete < Having decided that the statute of limitations with respect to Rouse’s “accuracy” claims is not jurisdictional, we > and replace with < We >.