Roland Cooke v. Bruce Wisan
This text of 458 F. App'x 700 (Roland Cooke v. Bruce Wisan) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Roland Cooke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that the defendants “confiscated the homes and property of 20,000-70,000 people in Utah, Arizona and Canada.” 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) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of standing because Cooke failed to allege any particularized injury to him that was fairly traceable to the defendants. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (standing under Article III requires a plaintiff to show that he suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete, particularized, and fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
458 F. App'x 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roland-cooke-v-bruce-wisan-ca9-2011.