Jane Doe v. Gavin Newsom ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
O. L., AKA Jane Doe, No. 21-55362
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-04525-JAK-PVC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity
as the Governor of California; ROB
BONTA, in his official capacity as the
Attorney General of California,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
O.L. appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for a
preliminary injunction and dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal
protection and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
795 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action because plaintiff lacks
standing to compel the investigation or prosecution of another person. See Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016) (to satisfy the injury-in-fact
requirement, a plaintiff must show that he “suffered an invasion of a legally
protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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 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).
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 11) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-55362