Mai-Trang Nguyen v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 12, 2023
• Docket: 22-16074
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAI-TRANG THI NGUYEN, No. 22-16074

Plaintiff-Appellant, 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