Clifford Johnson v. United States Department of the Treasury; Jacob Lew

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLIFFORD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY; JACOB LEW,*
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16775
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-06684-WHA
MEMORANDUM**
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014***
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Clifford Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the United States Department
FILED
MAY 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* Jacob Lew has been substituted for his predecessor, Timothy
Geithner, as Secretary of the Treasury 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 3 --

of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Treasury violated his First Amendment
right to freedom of expression by publishing statements about Federal Reserve
notes that are contrary to Johnson’s views and allegedly false. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
determination that Johnson does not have Article III standing, Jewel v. Nat’l Sec.
Agency, 673 F.3d 902, 907 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Johnson failed to allege the
essential elements of Article III standing, including personal injury that is fairly
traceable to defendants’ allegedly false representations and likely to be redressed
by an order granting Johnson a declaratory judgment. See Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (identifying three core requirements for
standing under Article III of the United States Constitution); Valley Forge
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S.
464, 474-75, 485-86 (1982) (no standing where allegations constitute nothing more
than the “generalized grievances” of one who observes government conduct with
which he disagrees).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion to
alter or amend judgment because Johnson failed to establish grounds for such
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
12-16775 2

-- 2 of 3 --

1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and discussing grounds for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
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) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
12-16775 3

-- 3 of 3 --