Neil Scott v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General; CISCO AGUILAR, Secretary of State of Nevada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NEIL SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General; CISCO AGUILAR, Secretary of
State of Nevada,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16355
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01473-RFB-DJA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Neil Scott appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for
lack of standing his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16355
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Meland v.
WEBER, 2 F.4th 838, 843 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Scott’s action because Scott failed to
allege facts sufficient to establish an injury in fact or how the asserted injury is
attributable to either defendant. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-
61 (1992) (constitutional standing requires an “injury in fact,” causation between
the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and redressability; “injury in fact” refers to
“an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized
. . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as meritless Scott’s contentions that the district court erred in
failing to rule on his motions for entry of default and summary judgment.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 4.
Scott’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 2, 3, and 6)
are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --