Garrison Johnson v. Jeffrey Beard , 679 F. App'x 583 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARRISON S. JOHNSON, No. 15-15967
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01918-LJO-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFREY A. BEARD; KELLY
HARRINGTON, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Garrison S. Johnson appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal
protection violation in connection with Inmate Advisory Council (“IAC”)
elections. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of constitutional standing. Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067
(9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action on the ground that
Johnson lacked constitutional standing because Johnson failed to show that the
challenged prison regulations concerning the IAC elections resulted in a concrete
and particularized injury to Johnson. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 560-61 (1992) (setting forth elements of Article III standing); Carroll v.
Natakani, 342 F.3d 934, 946 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While racial classification is subject
to strict scrutiny, a plaintiff, to challenge such classification, must establish
standing through showing a particularized denial of equal treatment.”); Arakaki v.
Hawaii, 314 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiffs lacked standing to
challenge Hawaiian statutory and constitutional provisions that required that the
appointed trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“OHA”) be citizens of
Hawaiian ancestry because neither plaintiff had been denied appointment as OHA
trustee).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Johnson’s action for lack
of Article III standing, we do not reach other issues raised by the parties regarding
the equal protection claim.
2 15-15967
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion
for reconsideration because Johnson failed to establish grounds for such relief. See
Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth
standard of review and factors warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(a)); Am. Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899
(9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth factors warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15967