Case ID: f-appx_509/html/0646-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rudolph George STANKO, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated citizens, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, c/o Attorney General of the United States, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35965.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 19, 2013.
    Roger Isaac Roots, Esquire, Livingston, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Rudolph George Stanko, Individually and on Behalf of Similarly Situated Citizens, pro se.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rudolph George Stanko appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his petition for declaratory relief and certification under 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Stanko failed to show a real case or controversy sufficient to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. See Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir.1997) (“A federal court does not have jurisdiction to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Levin Metals Corp. v. Parr-Richmond, Terminal Co., 799 F.2d 1312, 1315 (9th Cir.1986) (“The Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal subject matter jurisdiction.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.