Unpublished Disposition, 899 F.2d 19 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^** 

William David Mayes appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action challenging the constitutionality of the twenty-second amendment. We review de novo, Bruce v. United States, 759 F.2d 755, 758 (9th Cir. 1985), and affirm.

Mayes filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the two-term restriction on the President's office violated his fifth amendment due process rights by infringing on his "individual liberty" to vote for the candidate of his choice. The district court summarily dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Mayes lacked standing to bring the suit and the complaint raised a non-justiciable political question.

Mayes contends that the district court erred in not granting the requested relief. This contention fails.

A federal court's subject matter jurisdiction may be invoked only where the plaintiff has suffered "some threatened or actual injury" and such injury is more than a " 'generalized grievance' shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens ..." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (citation omitted). If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, a court may dismiss the action sua sponte before issuing a summons or following other procedural requirements. Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, the district court did not err in summarily dismissing the action. Because Mayes alleges only a generalized grievance shared by a large class of citizens, he lacks standing to invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 499.¹ 

AFFIRMED.