Case ID: f-appx_458/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roland COOKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce R. WISAN; Wisan Smith Racker & Prescott, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2011.
    Roland Cooke, Colorado City, AZ, pro se.
    Lisa Shirley Bruno, Jeffrey Alex Goldberg, Bruno Brooks & Goldberg PC, Kingman, AZ, Christopher Hamill, Atkinson, Hamill & Barrowclough, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roland Cooke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that the defendants “confiscated the homes and property of 20,000-70,000 people in Utah, Arizona and Canada.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wilson v. Kayo Oil Co., 563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of standing because Cooke failed to allege any particularized injury to him that was fairly traceable to the defendants. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (standing under Article III requires a plaintiff to show that he suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete, particularized, and fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant).

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