JOHN DRAPER V. J. LEWIS, No. 17-15042 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN CLINT DRAPER, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-15042 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

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.