Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT l
MICHAEL T. ROSSIDES, l No. 05-16238
. D.C. No. CV-03-02527—NVW
Plaintiff- Appellant,
JUDGMENT
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney
General, .
Defendant - Appellee. l .
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona _
(Phoenix). p
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
U United States District Court for the Distiict of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted. —
On consideration whereof, it is now here orderednand adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is ‘
AFFIRIVLED. . A
Filed and entered 12/12/06 _
A mus c0•=>v
· can-av A. cmrerasow
Clerk of Court
» £¤F£%`l`TE1*··
Mikie tw?
I · °? (ey; BM/_ ·
P 3 -·‘ •··¢ .
’ N ;·i"""" ; * 5
Case 2:03-cv-02527-NVW Document 40 Filed O3/27/2007 Page 1 of 3,


0 ` I h r ' I I
_ NOT FOR PUBLICATION l
_ - DEC 12 2006
. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS cAnJvéAégL?égrrg§§pI;EAci§ERK
_ A FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL T. ROSSIDES, p No. 05-16238 .
Plaintiff- Appellant, D.C. No. CV-03-02527-NVW
v.
i Mei/ioRANDUM*
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney ·
General, ‘
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court ·
A for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 4, 2006**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. _
Michael T. Rossides appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action seeking a declaratory judgment that his proposed operation
of a for-profit online "press" for enabling bets on matters of alleged public interest
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be
cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. I
M The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision-without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
C . _ _ .
ase 2.03 cv 02527-NVW Document 40 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 2 of 3

is protected by the First Amendment and accordingly not subject to prosecution 1
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1084, 1952, and 1953. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. After de novo review, LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh, 205 F.3d 1146, 1152_(9th Cir.
` 2000), we affirm. g W
The district court properly dismissed Rossides’ action for lack of standing
because Rossides did not demonstrate that he faces °"a realistic danger of .
sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute[s’] operation or enforcement.""
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm ’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)
(en banc) (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat ’l Union, 442 U.S. 289,
298 (1979)). No prosecuting authorities have ever communicated a specific threat
or warning to initiate proceedings against Rossides. See id. at 1140. In addition,
g Rossides has not identified any relevant history of enforcement under either
section 1952 or 1953, and he has cited only a single instance of prosecution under
g section 1084 involving a bookmaking business that Rossides concedes differed
from his in at least one significant respect. See id. at 1139 (evaluation of
genuineness of claimed threat of prosecution includes inquiry into past
. prosecution or enforcement of the challenged statutes). AJR§E_@®PY l
`attajqarcsartensow
Arrrinvreo. A ~5§;1?€§.“$"” Ciba _;

2
Case 2:03écv-02527-NVW Document 40 Filed O3/27/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02527-NVW

Document 40

Filed 03/27/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02527-NVW

Document 40

Filed 03/27/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02527-NVW

Document 40

Filed 03/27/2007

Page 3 of 3