Summary
affirming lack of standing after pro se plaintiff failed to plead a particularized injury
Summary of this case from Grimes v. AyerdisOpinion
No. 15-55211
11-02-2016
RICHARD N. URIAS, Citizens of the several States in same status and situs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BARACK OBAMA, President of the U.S.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02598-BTM-BLM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Richard N. Urias appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging various claims arising from defendants' alleged failure to act in accordance with the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Urias' action because Urias failed to plead a particularized injury necessary to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-76 (1992). ("[A]n injury amounting only to the alleged violation of a right to have the Government act in accordance with law was not judicially cognizable because assertion of a right to a particular kind of Government conduct, which the Government has violated by acting differently, cannot alone satisfy the requirements of Art. III without draining those requirements of meaning." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Urias' motion for judicial notice, filed on June 26, 2016, is denied.
AFFIRMED.