KAREN ISAACSON V. MARCIA FUDGE, No. 20-35442 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN MARIE ISAACSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35442 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00588-RAJ MEMORANDUM* MARCIA L. FUDGE, Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Karen Marie Isaacson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing her action alleging claims related to a Department of Housing and Urban Development rule. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review de novo. Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissal for lack of standing); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Isaacson’s action because Isaacson failed to allege facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (constitutional standing requires an “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability, and “the injury has to be fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant” as opposed to “the independent action of some third party not before the court” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 20-35442

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.