In Re: Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Public Interest, Inc. v. Usdc-Hi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 7, 2024
• Docket: 23-70023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 7 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR No. 23-70023 THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INC., ______________________________

CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE MEMORANDUM* PUBLIC INTEREST, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII,

Respondent.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Argued and Submitted February 15, 2024 Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: PAEZ, M. SMITH, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, Inc. (Civil Beat) petitions the

court for a writ of mandamus. Civil Beat requests that the court invalidate portions

of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii’s Criminal Local Rule

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 5.2, which requires automatic filing under seal for specific categories of

documents. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, so do not recount

them here. Because Civil Beat lacks standing to file this petition, we dismiss the

case for lack of jurisdiction.

1. Civil Beat does not meet Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement.

Parties must have standing to petition this court for a writ of mandamus. See

United States v. Mindel, 80 F.3d 394, 398 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v.

Sherman, 581 F.2d 1358, 1360–61 (9th Cir. 1978). Civil Beat bears the burden of

establishing standing because it is the party invoking federal jurisdiction. See

Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010). To meet the constitutional

minimum of standing, a party must have, inter alia, suffered an “‘injury in fact,’

which is an actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected, concrete, and

particularized interest.” United States v. Kovall, 857 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir.

2017) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)).

Because Civil Beat did not file this petition as a result of being denied access

to a particular document in a particular case, nothing in the briefing or record1

before us allows us to conclude that Civil Beat established it has suffered any

legally protected, concrete, and particularized interest. Cf. United States v.

Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Third parties challenging orders

1 Neither party supplemented its briefing with a record.

2 denying public access to proceedings or documents do not have standing to appeal

directly . . . [but] they may petition this Court for a writ of mandamus.” (emphasis

added)); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1982).

2. We deny Civil Beat leave to amend the petition and supplement the

record. See Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817,

824 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming decision to deny leave to amend where plaintiff

could not possibly have alleged injury in fact).

DISMISSED.