N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOY GAR

NER , individually

and on be ha lf of The C ontrol Group; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. JOSEPH R . B IDEN, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s Pre s ide nt of the Unite d State s of Am e ric a , De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 21-15587 D.C . No. 2:20-c v-02470-W B S-JDP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B
. Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2022 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : IKUTA, M ILLER , and B ADE, C irc uit Judge s . Joy Ga rne r, individually

and on be ha lf of The C ontrol Group—a non-profit orga niz ation tha

t surve y e d unva c c inate d

individual s for the purpose s of this 

# FIL ED FEB 28 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).litiga

tion— an d a

group of pa

re nts, who sueindividually and on be ha lf of the ir
m inor c hildre n (c olle c t ive ly , Appe lla nts), a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the i r c o m pla int a ga inst thePre side nt of the Unite d Stat e s in his offic ia l c a pa c ity for la c k of sta

nding. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we
a ffirm
. 1 Appe lla nts’ First Am e n de d C om

pla int (FAC ) doe s not pla usibly a lle ge a
c a usa l c onne c tion be twe e n Appe lla nts’ a lle ge d injurie s a

nd a ny a c tions by

the Pre side nt. B e c a

use Appe l la

nts’ a lle ge d injurie s , ranging from be ing disc rim inate d
a ga inst dueto loc a l va c c ine m andate s to “ t he m athe m atic a lly

prove n im

m ine nt dissolution of Am

e ric a from within,”are not “ fa irly

tra c e a ble to the c ha lle nge d
a c tion[s] of the de fe nda

nt,” Lujan v . De

fe nde r s of W ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560

1 W e note the distric t

c ourt’ s Fe brua

ry 11, 2022 orde r (Dkt. No. 39), whic h purporte d to va c ate the orde r on a ppe a l. The c ourt’ s orde r ha d no e ffe c t, howe ve r, be c a use it wa s issue d a fte r Appe lla nts file d the i r notic e of a

ppe a l in our c ourt. Se e Matte r of Visione e ring C

onstr. , 661 F.2d 119, 124 n.6 (9th C ir. 1981) (“ Onc e a notic e of a

ppe a l is file d

jurisdic tion is ve ste d

in the C ourt of Appe a ls, a nd the tria l c ourt the re a fte r ha s no powe r to m odify its judgme nt in the c a se or proc e e d furthe r e xc e pt by le av e of the C o urt of Appe a ls.” ). Ne i the r pa rty re que ste d le ave for a lim ite d re m and to the distric t c ourt to issue an indic ative ruling. Se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 62.1; Fe d . R . App. P. 12.1. Assum ing without de c iding tha

t we m ay none the le ss re m and in the se c irc um sta n c e s, Me ndia v

. Garc ia , 874 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th C ir. 2017), we de c line to do so he re . Inste a d, we e xe rc ise our jurisdic tion to de te rm ine de novo whe the r Appe lla

nts ha v e sta nding. C f. Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

z , 851 F.3d 931, 938–39 (9th C ir. 2017) (c onc luding tha t “ a re m and to thedistric t c ourt would be supe rfluous” whe n this c ourt wa s re quire d to c onduc t de novo re vie w on a ppe a l). 2(1992) (c le ane d up), Appe lla nts la c k sta

nding. As Appe lla

nts notein the ir FAC , the re is no fe d e ra lly

m a n dat e d va c c ine re quire m e nt; inste a d, the C DC re c om m e nds
va rious va c c ine sc he dule s, a nd sta te and loc a l gove rnm e nts a dopt the ir own
m andate s ba se d on those re c o m m e ndations. Appe lla

nts’ FAC doe s not a lle ge any pla u sible c onne c tion be twe e n a ny of the Pre side n t’ s a c tions a nd the injurie s Appe l la n ts ha ve a l le ge dly

suffe re d a s a

re sult of sta

te and loc a l va c c ine
re quire m e nts. Furthe r, be c a

use Appe lla

nts se e k de c la

ra t ory and injunc tive re lie f that we
c annot gra

nt a ga inst thePre side nt of the Unite d Stat e s, suc h a s orde ring the Pre side nt to c onduc t a

nationa l surve y , se e J

uliana v . Unite d

State s , 947 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th C ir. 2020), Appe lla nts’ a lle ge d injurie s a

re not like l y to be “ re d

re sse d by
a fav ora ble de c ision.” Lujan , 504 U.S. a t 561 (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing le ave to a m e nd be c a use pe rm itting le ave to a

m e nd would ha

ve be e n futile
. Se e Pe re

z v . Mortg. Ele c . Re gistration Sy

s., Inc
. , 959 F.3d 334, 340–41 (9th C ir. 2020). AFFIRM E D.

3