Opinion
22-16909
12-15-2023
WILLIAM A. GRAVEN, Named as Will, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted December 12, 2023.[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00062-GMS, G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
William A. Graven appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) for lack of standing. Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404, 407 (9th Cir. 2023). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Graven's action because Graven failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (setting forth requirements for constitutional standing); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) ("[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.").
We reject as without merit Graven's contention that the district court was biased against him.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).