C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam v. DAVID Y. IGE, Governor of the State of Hawaii;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
C. KAUI JOCHANAN AMSTERDAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID Y. IGE,* Governor of the State of
Hawaii; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15377
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00649-SOM-
KSC
MEMORANDUM**
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016***
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action seeking to enjoin the
FILED
AUG 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
David Y. Ige is substituted for his predecessor, Neil Abercrombie, as
Governor of the State of Hawaii under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
** 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

enforcement of Hawaii’s Marriage Equality Act of 2013. We review de novo,
Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2013), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Amsterdam’s action because
Amsterdam’s moral and cultural objections to same-sex marriages are generalized
grievances and are insufficient to confer Article III standing. See Hollingsworth v.
Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2662-63 (2013) (a “generalized grievance, no matter how
sincere, is insufficient to confer standing”; “Article III standing is not to be placed
in the hands of concerned bystanders who will use it simply as a vehicle for the
vindication of value interests” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (constitutional
standing requires an “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability).
Amsterdam’s contention that the district court ignored his amended reply is
without merit.
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly
raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
14-15377 2

-- 2 of 2 --