Griffin v. Kobata

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-610
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 18 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JANIS GRIFFIN, Individually and as No. 24-610 daughter of Charles W. Griffin, Deceased other, D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00503-LEK-RT Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

LESLIE KOBATA, in his individual capacity as Hawaii state official,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Janis Griffin appeals from the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing,

and from an order denying reconsideration of that dismissal.1 We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review questions of standing de novo,” Washington

v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 108 F.4th 1163, 1171–72 (9th Cir. 2024), and

“denial[s] of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion,” Berman v.

Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2022). “We may affirm

the district court’s dismissal on any grounds supported by the record.” Tritz v. U.S.

Postal Serv., 721 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

Griffin lacks standing because she has not adequately alleged that she had a

legally protected interest in the Property. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504

U.S. 555, 560 (1992). She does not have standing under Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S.

704 (1987), because there, the plaintiffs “d[id] not assert that their own property

rights have been taken unconstitutionally, but rather that their decedents’ right to

pass the property at death has been taken.” Id. at 711 (emphasis added). Griffin,

unlike the Hodel plaintiffs, may not assert standing on behalf of her decedent

father, because Griffin is pro se. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661,

664 (9th Cir. 2008).

1 Although Griffin’s Notice of Appeal lists Charles G. Breed as an appellee, he does not appear as an appellee in Griffin’s opening brief. Thus, any claims against him are forfeited. Lui v. DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770, 780 (9th Cir. 2025).

2 AFFIRMED.