MAI-TRANG NGUYEN V. USA, No. 22-16074 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 12 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAI-TRANG THI NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-16074 D.C. No. 5:22-cv-00948-NC v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted June 26, 2023** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her Federal Torts Claims Act action arising from voting procedures in the 2020 presidential election. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Warren v. Fox Fam. Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Nguyen’s action because Nguyen failed to allege facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (explaining that constitutional standing requires an “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability; “injury in fact” refers to “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized … and (b) actual or imminent” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that a “generalized grievance against allegedly illegal government conduct” is insufficient to confer standing). We do not consider Nguyen’s contentions concerning the dismissal of her prior action because it is outside the scope of this appeal. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16074

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.