David Zaitzeff v. City of Seattle

Ninth Circuit

David Zaitzeff v. City of Seattle

703 F. App'x 594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 2017

Docket16-35955

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 703 F. App'x 594 (David Zaitzeff v. City of Seattle) 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

David Zaitzeff v. City of Seattle, 703 F. App'x 594 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

David Zaitzeff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 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 pre-enforcement 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.

***

ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

David Zaitzeff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 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 pre-enforcement 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.

***

ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-zaitzeff-v-city-of-seattle-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack