Case Name: Michael E. BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 713 F. App'x 648
Docket Number: No. 17-15641
Parties: Michael E. BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 648–649

Head Matter:
Michael E. BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15641
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 23, 2018
Michael E. Boyd, Pro Se
Claire Truxaw Cormier, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees United States Department of the Treasury, Jack Lew, United States of America
David William Tyra, James W. Ward, Attorney, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard PC, Sacramento, CA, for Defen dants-Appellees Jerry Brown, Michael Cohen
Thomas J. Umberg, Attorney, Umberg Zipser LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Betty Yee
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael E. Boyd appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of constitutional standing. Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Boyd's action was proper because Boyd failed to allege facts showing that defendants caused Boyd any cognizable injury as required for Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (elements of Article III standing); see also Wash. Envtl. Council, 732 F.3d at 1139 ("We also have an independent duty to assure that standing exists, irrespective of whether the parties challenge it.").
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n,2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.