C. Amsterdam v. Neil Abercrombie

Ninth Circuit

C. Amsterdam v. Neil Abercrombie

667 F. App'x 981

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 2016

Docket14-15377

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 F. App'x 981 (C. Amsterdam v. Neil Abercrombie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. Amsterdam v. Neil Abercrombie, 667 F. App'x 981 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

C, Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Hawaii’s Marriage Equality Act of 2013, We review de novo, Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Amsterdam’s action because Amsterdam’s moral and cultural objections to same-sex marriages are generalized grievances and are insufficient to confer Article III standing. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2662-63, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) (a “generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing”; “Article III standing is not to be placed in the hands of concerned bystanders who will use it simply as a vehicle for the vindication of value interests” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (constitutional standing requires an “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability).

Amsterdam’s contention that the district court ignored his amended reply is without merit.

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

C, Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Hawaii’s Marriage Equality Act of 2013, We review de novo, Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Amsterdam’s action because Amsterdam’s moral and cultural objections to same-sex marriages are generalized grievances and are insufficient to confer Article III standing. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2662-63, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013) (a “generalized grievance, no matter how sincere, is insufficient to confer standing”; “Article III standing is not to be placed in the hands of concerned bystanders who will use it simply as a vehicle for the vindication of value interests” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (constitutional standing requires an “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability).

Amsterdam’s contention that the district court ignored his amended reply is without merit.

We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-amsterdam-v-neil-abercrombie-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack