Case ID: f-appx_713/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael E. BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-15641
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 23, 2018
    Michael E. Boyd, Pro Se
    Claire Truxaw Cormier, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees United States Department of the Treasury, Jack Lew, United States of America
    David William Tyra, James W. Ward, Attorney, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard PC, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Jerry Brown, Michael Cohen
    Thomas J. Umberg, Attorney, Umberg Zipser LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Betty Yee
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael E. Boyd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of constitutional standing. Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Boyd’s action was proper because Boyd failed to allege facts showing that defendants caused Boyd any cognizable injury as required for Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (elements of Article III standing); see also Wash. Envtl. Council, 732 F.3d at 1139 (“We also have an independent duty to assure that standing exists, irrespective of whether the parties challenge it.”).

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n,2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.