Charles Pace v. Bonneville Power Administration

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).
08-74269
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES PACE,
Petitioner,
v.
BONNEVILLE POWER
ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
No. 08-74269
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of a Record of Decision of the
Bonneville Power Administration
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Charles Pace petitions pro se for review of the Bonneville Power
Administration’s (“BPA”) August 12, 2008 Record of Decision adopting a
reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid jeopardy to a number of fish species
listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. We have
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74269 2
jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5). We review de novo the issue of standing
to sue. Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2002).
We dismiss the petition for review.
Pace failed to establish his standing under Article III, which is a pre-
requisite to his proceeding in this court. Specifically, Pace failed to establish that
he suffered concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent, a causal
connection between the injury and the conduct of which he complains, and the
likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the alleged injury. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (setting forth elements of
standing); Nw. Envtl. Defense Ctr. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520,
1527-28 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizing that petitioners of final BPA decision
established standing on direct review in this court, and thus the court’s subject
matter jurisdiction, by submitting affidavits to the court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --