Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-02
Citations: 659 F. App'x 457
Docket Number: No. 15-55211
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 659
Pages: 457–457

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.