Court Opinion

ID: 8682688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 06:04:30.334165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:31.763343
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 19, 2017 be affirmed. By seeking relief on behalf of all citizens of the United States with respect to the 2016 presidential election and other recent political activity, appellant has *14presented only a “generally available grievance” that does not confer standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); see id. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (A plaintiff — “claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.”). Because appellant failed to establish standing, the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2342, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.