Michael E. Spreadbury v. U.s. Department of Health & Human Services;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
HUMAN SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35901
D.C. No. 9:10-cv-00081-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Michael E. Spreadbury appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that demolition and construction
activities related to the Rocky Mountain Laboratories (the “Laboratories”) in
FILED
JAN 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-35901 2
Hamilton, Montana violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq. (the “Act”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Spreadbury’s action for failure to
satisfy constitutional and prudential standing requirements. First, Spreadbury
failed to describe how defendants’ alleged construction activities in violation of the
Act resulted in an injury to his personal, concrete interests. See Nuclear Info. &
Res. Serv. v. NRC, 457 F.3d 941, 949-50 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth
constitutional standing requirements). Second, Spreadbury failed to allege how
defendants’ alleged actions injured him within the zone of interests protected by
the Act. See Ashley Creek Phosphate Co. v. Norton, 420 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir.
2005) (setting forth prudential standing requirements).
Spreadbury’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --