DAVID ZAITZEFF V. CITY OF SEATTLE, No. 16-35955 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID ZAITZEFF, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-35955 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00244-BAT v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipality; DANIEL SATTERBERG, King County Prosecutor, those in privity with him, in re RCW 9.41.250 and Sea v Evans, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted November 15, 2017*** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. David Zaitzeff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for lack of standing his action alleging that Revised Washington Code section 9.41.250 and Seattle Municipal Code sections 12A.14.080 and.083 violate his First and Second Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilson v. Kayo Oil Co., 563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Zaitzeff’s action because Zaitzeff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish constitutional standing to bring a preenforcement challenge to a statute. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth factors to consider in evaluating genuineness of a claimed threat of prosecution); San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Comm’n v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must show a “genuine threat of imminent prosecution” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Libertarian Party v. Bowen, 709 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013) (in First Amendment context, courts consider “whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, and the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-35955

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.