In re: CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INC., CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER… v. United States District Court for the District of Hawaii

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INC.,
______________________________
CIVIL BEAT LAW CENTER FOR THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII,
Respondent.
No. 23-70023
MEMORANDUM*
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2024
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: PAEZ, M. SMITH, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, Inc. (Civil Beat) petitions the
court for a writ of mandamus. Civil Beat requests that the court invalidate portions
of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii’s Criminal Local Rule
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
MAR 7 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
5.2, which requires automatic filing under seal for specific categories of
documents. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, so do not recount
them here. Because Civil Beat lacks standing to file this petition, we dismiss the
case for lack of jurisdiction.
1. Civil Beat does not meet Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement.
Parties must have standing to petition this court for a writ of mandamus. See
United States v. Mindel, 80 F.3d 394, 398 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v.
Sherman, 581 F.2d 1358, 1360–61 (9th Cir. 1978). Civil Beat bears the burden of
establishing standing because it is the party invoking federal jurisdiction. See
Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010). To meet the constitutional
minimum of standing, a party must have, inter alia, suffered an “‘injury in fact,’
which is an actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected, concrete, and
particularized interest.” United States v. Kovall, 857 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir.
2017) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)).
Because Civil Beat did not file this petition as a result of being denied access
to a particular document in a particular case, nothing in the briefing or record1
before us allows us to conclude that Civil Beat established it has suffered any
legally protected, concrete, and particularized interest. Cf. United States v.
Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Third parties challenging orders
1 Neither party supplemented its briefing with a record.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
denying public access to proceedings or documents do not have standing to appeal
directly . . . [but] they may petition this Court for a writ of mandamus.” (emphasis
added)); United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1982).
2. We deny Civil Beat leave to amend the petition and supplement the
record. See Schmier v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817,
824 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming decision to deny leave to amend where plaintiff
could not possibly have alleged injury in fact).
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --