Whitaker

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law for alleged violations of their federal constitutional and state-law rights. The Plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief on the ground that they lacked standing. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1), and we affirm.

In order to have standing to seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of repeated injury or future harm to the plaintiff in the absence of the injunction. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1982) (describing the standing requirement for injunctive relief as requiring that the “threat to the plaintiffs” of future injury be “sufficiently real and immediate”); B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir.1999) (“To have standing to seek relief, [the plaintiff] must demonstrate a real or immediate threat that the defendants will again subject him to [another illegal search].”) (emphasis added); Imagineering v. Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303 , 1308-09 (9th Cir.1992) (“We conclude that the amended…