William Graven v. Mark Brnovich ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM A. GRAVEN, Named as Will, No. 22-16909
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00062-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General,
Attorney General; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
William A. Graven appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b) for lack of standing. Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404, 407 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2023). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Graven’s action because Graven failed
to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (setting forth requirements for constitutional
standing); 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 reject as without merit Graven’s contention that the district court was
biased against him.
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).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-16909