Does 1-4 v. United States Attorney Office, District of Nevada

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOES 1-4,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE,
DISTRICT OF NEVADA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-17409
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01083-KJD-PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 17, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Four anonymous “Doe” commentators on a newspaper’s Internet message
board challenge two subpoenas seeking identifying information for commentators
on the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s May 26, 2009 article. The district court found
that Does 1-4’s action was moot and, alternatively, that there was no set of facts
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
supporting Does 1-4’s First Amendment claims. We do not reach the First
Amendment claims because we decide the case on standing and mootness grounds.
We review de novo whether a party has standing. See Stormans, Inc. v.
Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). “Questions of standing . . . may be
raised and considered for the first time on appeal, including sua sponte.” Id. We
also review de novo the district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss for
mootness. Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Dole, 870 F.2d 1419, 1423 (9th Cir. 1989).
We conclude that Does 1-4’s challenge to the first subpoena is moot. The
Las Vegas Review-Journal did not comply with that subpoena, and the subpoena
no longer has any effect. Therefore, there is no harm to remedy. See Earth Island
Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotations omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).
We also conclude that Does 1-4 lack standing to challenge the second
subpoena. Does 1-4 fail to establish that they authored either of the two comments
targeted by that subpoena. Therefore, Does 1-4 have not shown that they suffered
an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.
Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --