Richard P. Loritz, II v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the court but respectfully disagree that Mr. Loritz lacks standing to assert his claims. And, I also disagree that Schmier v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 820 (9th Cir.2002), provides controlling precedent in this particular case. Mr. Schmier alleged that as an attorney who practices in the courts of the Ninth Circuit and as a beneficially interested citizen with personal concerns about how and when the Ninth Circuit allows precedential use of its opinions, he had standing to seek injunctive relief. I agree with the court that he did not. Obviously, any purported injury suffered by Mr. Schmier was not “fairly traceable” to the challenged action. Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. EPA 344 F.3d 832 , 863 (9th Cir.2003)(quotation omitted). Here, however, Mr. Loritz’s interests are not so remote. He asserts immediate and particularized claims clearly concerned with his own criminal conviction and his continuing incarceration in California prisons.

*993 Although Mr. Loritz states, as noted by the court, that his pleadings constitute “a civil suit, not a habeas petition,” 1 his operative allegations belie that…

ORDER

Richard P. Loritz, II (“Loritz”) was sentenced to seventeen years in California state prison following his jury-trial convictions for attempted murder. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence and conviction and the California Supreme Court denied Loritz’s petition for review.

Loritz subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court for the Southern District of California, raising a number of challenges to his convictions, and the district court denied that petition. Loritz appealed (“the habeas appeal”) and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”) affirmed in an unpublished memorandum disposition pursuant to Rule 36-3. See Loritz v. Terhune, 60 Fed.Appx. 1 (9th Cir.2002). Lor-itz filed a petition for en banc review of the decision and a motion for publication of the disposition pursuant to Rule 36-4; both were denied. The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied Loritz’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

In April 2003, Loritz filed a pro se civil action against the Ninth Circuit challenging as unconstitutional the Ninth Circuit Rules concerning non-publication of dispositions of appeals, Ninth Circuit…

382 F.3d 990 Richard P. LORITZ, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-15028. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Filed September 2, 2004. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Richard P. Loritz, II, Laughlin, NV, pro se, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jocelyn Burton, Esq., Office of The U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, Douglas N. Letter, Attorney, Tara Leigh Grove, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee. Before KRAVITCH, BEAM, and COWEN, Circuit Judges. * ORDER 1 Richard P. Loritz, II ("Loritz") was sentenced to seventeen years in California state prison following his jury-trial convictions for attempted murder. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence and conviction and the California Supreme Court denied Loritz's petition for review. 2 Loritz subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court for the Southern District of California, raising a number of challenges to his convictions, and the district court denied that petition. Loritz appealed ("the habeas appeal") and the United States Court of…