Jonathan Cohen v. Loretta Lynch , 658 F. App'x 324 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       SEP 19 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JONATHAN AARON COHEN,                            No.   15-55669
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01609-BAS-
    MDD
    v.
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,              MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 13, 2016**
    Before:       HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Jonathan Aaron Cohen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action seeking a declaratory
    judgment that he will not be criminally sanctioned under federal or state law for
    transporting, in the course of his business, cannabis for medical purposes. We
    *
    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).
    have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo the district court’s
    dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Aydin Corp. v. Union of India,
    
    940 F.2d 527
    , 527 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Cohen’s action for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction because Cohen failed to establish an injury as required for
    Article III standing. See Hillblom v. United States, 
    896 F.2d 426
    , 430-31 (9th Cir.
    1990) (plaintiffs’ allegations were “premised on potential future acts” and
    subsequently insufficient to establish an “injury which warrants judicial
    intervention”); Aydin Corp., 
    940 F.2d at 527-28
     (declaratory relief is proper only
    when there is an actual case or controversy); see also Lujan v. Defenders of
    Wildlife, 
    504 U.S. 555
    , 560-61 (1992) (setting forth the elements of Article III
    standing).
    In light of our disposition, we do not address Cohen’s Statement on Oral
    Argument, filed August 17, 2015.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    15-55669
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-55669

Citation Numbers: 658 F. App'x 324

Filed Date: 9/19/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023