Unpublished Disposition, 855 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1988)

No. 86-2712.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING and HUG, Circuit Judges, and JESSE W. CURTIS,^**  Senior District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^* 

The central question in this case is whether the complaint alleges a sufficient basis for subject matter jurisdiction in the district court. The appellant, Greg A. Getty, essentially alleges that his rights are being violated by United States foreign policy, which he contends advocates executions of all Sandinistas and their sympathizers in violation of various criminal statutes. The district court dismissed the case primarily on lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Getty had alleged no justiciable case or controversy pursuant to U.S. Const. art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. The district court also found that Getty lacked standing, and that Getty's claim fell within the political question doctrine. We affirm on the basis of no justiciable case or controversy. Therefore, we need not address Getty's other contentions.

Litigants who bring their case before a federal court must first satisfy the threshold requirement of subject matter jurisdiction imposed by U.S. Const. art. III by alleging a case or controversy and a personal stake in the outcome. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983). A justiciable controversy must ask a concrete question capable of being resolved through the judicial process; it is distinguishable from a hypothetical or academic dispute. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240 (1937); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968).

Getty here presents to the court a disagreement he has with the Government's political stance. Even though he cites various statutes, he fails to allege concrete legal interests which are adverse to each other and which are appropriate for judicial resolution. He alleges no justiciable controversy required by U.S. Const. art. III.

Moreover, Getty fails to allege that he has any personal stake in the outcome of the case. A litigant must demonstrate that he is immediately in danger of being injured directly as a result of the cited official action. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Getty has not alleged any official action by the Government which would result in any direct, immediate injury to him. Although Getty does discuss his fears of reprisals and his apparent sincere belief that the Government's political stance is incorrect, Getty does not demonstrate to the court any warranted fear based on concrete facts. Nor does he demonstrate that he personally will suffer a direct immediate injury as a result of the Government's political stance.

Getty also claims a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 535(b), which requires the head of an agency receiving information relating to violations of Title 18 to expeditiously report them to the Attorney General. Getty refers to possible violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 1117. He argues that the defendants' failure to take action under section 535(b) threatens his personal safety. Getty, however, fails in this context to allege the necessary personal stake in the outcome to establish a case or a controversy. He has not alleged any immediate injury in which he has a personal stake.

Getty has alleged no justiciable controversy.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.