Roland Cooke v. Bruce R. Wisan; Wisan Smith Racker & Prescott

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROLAND COOKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRUCE R. WISAN; WISAN SMITH
RACKER & PRESCOTT,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16125
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-08152-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Roland Cooke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
for lack of standing his action alleging that the defendants “confiscated the homes
and property of 20,000 - 70,000 people in Utah, Arizona and Canada.” We have
FILED
NOV 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16125 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wilson v. Kayo Oil Co.,
563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of standing because
Cooke failed to allege any particularized injury to him that was fairly traceable to
the defendants. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)
(standing under Article III requires a plaintiff to show that he suffered an invasion
of a legally protected interest which is concrete, particularized, and fairly traceable
to the challenged action of the defendant).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --