N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NATALIA A. SIDIAKINA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JAM ES G. B ER TOLI, Judge ; R OB ER T S. B OYD, Judge ; SUPERIOR C O UR T OF SONOM A C O UNTY; IGNAZIO R UVOLO, Judge ; C ALIFOR NIA C OUR T OF APPEAL, First Appe lla te Distric t, Division 4; JUDIC IAL B R ANC H OF C ALIFOR

NIA GOVER

NM ENT; STATE OF C A LIFOR

NIA,; JUDIC IAL C OUNC IL OF C ALIFOR NIA, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17235 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-03157-JSW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FISHER , R

AW LINSON, a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED SEP 09 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Nata lia Sidia kina (Sidia kina ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of he r a c tion unde r Title II of the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t (ADA) a g a i nst the Supe rior C ourt of Sonom a C ounty and re late d de fe nda

nts. Thedistric t c ourt dism isse d Sidia

kina ’ s e ntire c om

pla int unde r the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc trine . 1 Sidia kina a ppe a ls the dism issa l of he r c la im that the C a l ifornia sta te c o urts’ polic y of re fusing to a

ppoint c ounse l a s a

n a c c om m o dation for qua lifie d individuals with c ognitivedisa

bilitie s viola

te d the ADA. Sidia

kina c onc e de s tha

t the distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d a

m a jority of he r a lle gations under the Rook e r-Fe ldman doc trine . Howe ve r, Sidia kina c onte nds tha

t the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc trine doe s not pre c lude he r prospe c t ive c ha lle nge to the sta t e c ourts’ polic y . Eve n a ssum ing the Rook

e r-Fe ldman doc trine doe s not pre c lude Sidia kina ’ s prospe c tive c ha lle nge , we a ffirm the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r of dism issa l be c a use Sidia kina la c ks sta nding to bring this c l a im . Dism issa l wa s prope r be c a use Sidia kina la c ks sta nding to c ha lle nge the a lle ge d polic y a ga inst a ppointm e nt of c ounse l. It is a

we ll-e s ta blishe d princ iple of la

w tha t a pa rty se e king to de m onstra

te sta nding m ust a sse rt a

n injury tha t is “ a c tua l or im

m ine nt, not c onje c tura l or hy

pothe tic a l.” Mc C

ormac k v . He rzog , 788 F.3d 1017, 1026 (9th C ir. 2015) (c ita

tion omitte d). He re , the re c ord re fle c ts tha t Sidia kina ’ s divorc e

1 Rook e r v . Fide lity

Trust C o. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Distric t of C olumbia C ourt of Appe als v . Fe l

dman , 460 U.S. 462, 463-64 (1983).

2proc e e dings c onc lude d in 2011. B e c a use Sidia k ina is c h a lle nging a

c ourt rule and its a c c o m pa ny ing polic ie s, she “ m

ust de m onstra

te a re a l istic da

nge r of susta ining a dire c t injury

a s a re sult of the[rule ’ s] ope ration or e nforc e m e nt.” Id. (c ita t ions om i tte d). This shec annot do be c a use she no longe r ha s a

ny m atte r pe nding in the Sonom a C ounty

c o urts. In an e ffort to pre se rve sta nding, Sidia

kina proffe re d on a

p pe a l tha t she m ay re e nga ge with the sta

t e c ourt sy ste m

at som e point in the

future “ to e ithe r e nforc e or m odify a c ourt orde r in he r divorc e proc e e dings,” at whic h point she will bede nie d c ounse l a s a

disa bility a c c om m odation. Eve n if Sidia

kina we re pe rm itte d

le ave to am e nd he r c om

pla int to inc lude this a lle g ation, the thre at of injury she a lle g e s is too re m ote and spe c ulative to c onfe r sta nding. C f. Assoc . Ge n. C

ontrac tors of C

al. v . C oal. for Ec on. Equity , 950 F.2d 1401, 1407 (9th C ir. 1991) (e xpla ining tha t injury wa s “ too spe c ulative ” whe re “ the re wa s . . . little indic ation in the

re c ord tha

t the pla i ntiffs ha d firm

inte nt ions to ta

ke a c tion tha

t would trigger the c ha lle nge d gove rnm e nta l a c tion.” ). B e c a use Sidia kina la c ks sta nding thedistric t c ourt c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t it wa s without jurisdic

tion to a djudic ate he r c a se . Se eBraunste in v . Ariz. De pt. of Transp. , 683 F.3d 1177, 1189-90 (9th C ir. 2012). W e the re fore a ffirm the d istric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt. Se eid. AFFIRM E D. 3