McClain

MEMORANDUM **

Frank McLain and Harley McLain appeal pro se the district court’s dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 1985, and 1988 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

Because plaintiffs reside in Montana and North Dakota but did not allege a concrete harm caused by the out-of-state defendants, the district court properly dismissed these claims for lack of standing. See Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 904 , 116 S.Ct. 1894 , 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996) (holding that a plaintiff lacks standing to challenge legislation created outside of plaintiffs district absent specific evidence of personal harm); United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 743-44 , 115 S.Ct. 2431 , 132 L.Ed.2d 635 (1995) (indicating that a generalized grievance against allegedly illegal governmental conduct is insufficient to provide standing).

The district court properly dismissed Harley McLain’s claims against the North Dakota defendants because he failed to allege a concrete harm. See Hays, 515 U.S. at 743-44…