John Draper v. J. Lewis , 696 F. App'x 272 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN CLINT DRAPER, No. 17-15042
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01956-JAM-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. LEWIS, Deputy Director; CALIFORNIA
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE
SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner John Clint Draper appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional claims related to a potential data breach. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Draper’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Draper failed to establish an injury in fact as required
for Article III standing. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs.
(TOC) Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (outlining elements of Article III
standing, and explaining that the alleged injury must be “actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical” to establish Article III standing).
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).
Draper’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15042