NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE No. 13-17247
ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED
PEOPLE, Maricopa County Branch and D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01079-DGC
NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC
AMERICAN WOMEN’S FORUM,
MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
TOM HORNE, Attorney General of
Arizona, in his official capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 9, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: CLIFTON and OWENS, Circuit Judges and SMITH,** Chief District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable William E. Smith, Chief District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
Plaintiffs National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,
Maricopa County Branch, and National Asian Pacific American
Women’s Forum appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action
challenging, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Susan B. Anthony and
Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011, codified at sections
13-3603.02 and 36-2157 of Arizona Revised Statutes. The district court concluded
that Plaintiffs’ alleged injury – the stigmatizing effect of the statutes on Plaintiffs’
members – was insufficient to support standing and accordingly granted
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.
Under Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), the “stigmatizing injury often
caused by racial discrimination” is a sufficient basis for standing “only to ‘those
persons who are personally denied equal treatment’ by the challenged
discriminatory conduct.” Id. at 755 (quoting Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728,
739-40 (1984)). Plaintiffs have not alleged that their members were personally
denied equal treatment under Allen, as stigmatic injury caused by being a target of
official discrimination is not itself a personal denial of equal treatment. See 468
U.S. at 755.
2
Plaintiffs purport to present an alternate basis for standing resulting from
being “the targets of . . . discriminatory intent.” That theory is a mere repetition of
Plaintiffs’ stigmatic injury, which does not support standing.
AFFIRMED.
3