Case ID: f-appx_659/html/0457-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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.
    No. 15-55211
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 2, 2016
    Richard N. Urias, Pro Se
    Glen Frederick Dorgan, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Barack Obama, Harry Reid
    Sarah E. Clouse, Staff Attorney, U.S. House of Representatives, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (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. Ill 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.