Karen Marie Isaacson v. MARCIA L. FUDGE, Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAREN MARIE ISAACSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Secretary, United
States Department of Housing and Urban
Development; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35442
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00588-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Karen Marie Isaacson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of standing her action alleging claims related to a Department
of Housing and Urban Development rule. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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
DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35442
§ 1291. We review de novo. Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1226
(9th Cir. 2016) (dismissal for lack of standing); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Isaacson’s action because Isaacson
failed to allege facts sufficient to establish Article III standing. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (constitutional standing
requires an “injury in fact,” causation, and redressability, and “the injury has to be
fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant” as opposed to “the
independent action of some third party not before the court” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --