eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-07

Gabriella Kertesz v. Bob Ferguson ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIELLA KERTESZ,                              No. 20-35573
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00372-RAJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BOB FERGUSON, Attorney General of
Washington State,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before:      SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Gabriella Kertesz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Bob Ferguson, the Attorney
General of Washington State, violated her civil rights in connection with a state
law that concerns medical consent forms. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson,
    640 F.3d 948
    , 955 (9th Cir. 2011).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kertesz’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Kertesz failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate
Article III standing. See Arakaki v. Lingle,
    477 F.3d 1048
    , 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (to
establish standing, a plaintiff must allege that she “has suffered concrete injury,
that there is a causal connection between [her] injury and the conduct complained
of, and that the injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision”); Smelt v.
County of Orange,
    447 F.3d 673
    , 682 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The burden of showing that
there is standing rests on the shoulders of the party asserting it.”).
We reject as without merit Kertesz’s contention, set forth in her
supplemental filing, that the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction divested this court of jurisdiction over the appeal.
AFFIRMED.
2                                    20-35573