Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8648504
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Larry v. Uyehara
No. 8648504 · Decided March 17, 2008
No. 8648504·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
March 17, 2008
Citation
No. 8648504
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** The motion to reinstate this appeal is granted. A review of the record and the response to the order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). Larry appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). We review the district court’s dismissal de novo. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). Larry’s complaint alleged that defendants committed a white collar crime because defendants misstated a news reporter’s birthday while on a television broadcast. Appellant requested that the district court issue an arrest warrant. We conclude that the district court properly dismissed this action because Larry lacks standing to initiate a criminal prosecution. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 , 93 S.Ct. 1146 , 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973) (holding that a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** The motion to reinstate this appeal is granted.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** The motion to reinstate this appeal is granted.
02A review of the record and the response to the order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.