NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD N. URIAS, Citizens of the No. 15-55211
several States in same status and situs,
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02598-BTM-
Plaintiff-Appellant, BLM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BARACK OBAMA, President of the U.S.;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
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 (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. III 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.
2 15-55211