Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Frank McLain and Harley McLain appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm. Because plaintiffs reside in Montana and North Dakota but did not allege a concrete harm caused by the out-of-state defendants, the district court properly dismissed these claims for lack of standing. See Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 904, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743-44, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance (B) holding that a borrower lacks standing to challenge transfers of her promissory note to which the borrower is not a party (C) holding that a plaintiff lacks standing to challenge legislation created outside of plaintiffs district absent specific evidence of personal harm (D) holding that a party lacks standing to challenge the validity of a deed issued by a county treasurer in the absence of actual injury to a legally protected interest (E) holding that a claimant without an interest in a particular specific asset lacks standing to initiate ancillary proceeding
Output (English): holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance