Stephen Eugster v. Washington State Bar Assoc.

474 F. App'x 624

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2012
• Docket: 10-35694
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Eugster (Eugster) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit on standing and ripeness grounds. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Eugster’s complaint does not allege that he will ever again be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Because Eugster has not presented any allegations about what he will do in the future that might subject him to the allegedly unconstitutional attorney disciplinary process again, we hold that Eugster lacks standing to pursue his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 862 (9th Cir.1992). For the same reason, we hold that Eugster’s claims rest on contingent future events that may not occur. Thus, Eugster’s claims are not ripe. See Bova v. City of Medford, 564 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir.2009) (citation omitted).

In light of our conclusions, we decline to reach the remaining issues raised by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Eug-ster’s complaint.

AFFIRMED.

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