Mottahedeh

MEMORANDUM **

Peymon and April Mottahedeh appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising from a tax investigation and under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, FDIC v. British-Am. Ins. Co., 828 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1987), and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Group, Inc., 336 F.3d 982 , 985 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Agent Tambornini because he was never properly served. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(i)(3); see also Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 234 (9th Cir.1994) (explaining that in California service by mail is valid only if a signed acknowledgment is returned).

The district court did not err when it dismissed the FOIA claims sua sponte. See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B) (stating the court has jurisdiction to enjoin an “agency from withholding records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld”); Scholastic Entm’t, 336 F.3d at 985 (setting forth circumstances when a party is entitled to…