Roy Conant v. Kate Brown ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROY B. CONANT, No. 17-35349
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02290-HZ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KATE BROWN, Governor, State of
Oregon; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 6, 2018**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges
Roy B. Conant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
for lack of standing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging various Oregon voting
laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s standing determination, Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Cegavske, 800
*
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).
F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Conant’s action for lack of standing
because Conant failed to allege an injury in fact. See Rubin v. City of Santa
Monica, 308 F.3d 1008, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff’s challenges to state
election laws “as a voter and a citizen” did not constitute an injury in fact). “To
establish standing, . . . the injury must be more than a generalized grievance
common to all members of the public.” Id.; see also Schlesinger v. Reservists
Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 216–27, 94 S. Ct. 2925, 41 L. Ed. 2d 706
(1974).
We do not consider on appeal any issues not raised before the district court.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-35349