RICHARD URIAS V. BARACK OBAMA, No. 15-55211 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 2 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD N. URIAS, Citizens of the several States in same status and situs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55211 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02598-BTMBLM MEMORANDUM* BARACK OBAMA, President of the U.S.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Richard N. Urias appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging various claims arising from defendants’ alleged failure to act in accordance with the United States * 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). Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Urias’ action because Urias failed to plead a particularized injury necessary to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573-76 (1992). (“[A]n injury amounting only to the alleged violation of a right to have the Government act in accordance with law was not judicially cognizable because assertion of a right to a particular kind of Government conduct, which the Government has violated by acting differently, cannot alone satisfy the requirements of Art. III without draining those requirements of meaning.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Urias’ motion for judicial notice, filed on June 26, 2016, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-55211

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.