Opinion
21-55690
08-26-2022
ROBERT H. NEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California; ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendants-Appellees, and JACKIE LACEY, Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 2:20-cv-08935-FLA-JEM Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Robert H. Newell appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of standing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging California's child abandonment and support laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Meland v. Weber, 2 F.4th 838, 843 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Newell's action because Newell failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate an injury-in-fact. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (constitutional standing requires an "injury in fact," causation, and redressability; "injury in fact" refers to "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Newell's request for judicial notice, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).