Opinion
No. 17-35349
06-08-2018
ROY B. CONANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KATE BROWN, Governor, State of Oregon; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02290-HZ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 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.