Opinion
22-16074
07-12-2023
MAI-TRANG THI NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D.C. No. 5:22-cv-00948-NC Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her Federal Torts Claims Act action arising from voting procedures in the 2020 presidential election. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Warren v. Fox Fam. Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nguyen's action because Nguyen failed to allege facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (explaining that constitutional standing requires an "injury in fact," causation, and redressability; "injury in fact" refers to "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized ... and (b) actual or imminent" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that a "generalized grievance against allegedly illegal government conduct" is insufficient to confer standing).
We do not consider Nguyen's contentions concerning the dismissal of her prior action because it is outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).