CONANT v. BROWN (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Roy B. Conant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging various Oregon voting laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s standing determination, Nat’l Council of La Raza v. Cegavske, 800 F.3d 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Conant’s action for lack of standing because Conant failed to allege an injury in fact. See Rubin v. City of Santa Monica, 308 F.3d 1008, 1020 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff’s challenges to state election laws “as a voter and a citizen” did not constitute an injury in fact). “To establish standing, ․ the injury must be more than a generalized grievance common to all members of the public.” Id.; see also Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 216–27, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974).

We do not consider on appeal any issues not raised before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.