Court Opinion

ID: 9910495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 19:00:46.073159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:08.915848
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 15 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM A. GRAVEN, Named as Will,               No. 22-16909

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00062-GMS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General,
Attorney General; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before:      WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      William A. Graven appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b) for lack of standing. Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404, 407 (9th

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2023). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Graven’s action because Graven failed

to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (setting forth requirements for constitutional

standing); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen

lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of

another.”).

      We reject as without merit Graven’s contention that the district court was

biased against him.

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      22-16909