Canatella

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Richard Canatella (“Appellant”) appeals the dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against several officers of the State Bar of California alleging that: 1) five California attorney disciplinary provisions are unconstitutional, 2) the Bar’s disciplinary procedures violate due process and the Supremacy Clause, and 3) the Bar has deprived him of the protection of California’s litigation privilege. The facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. Dismissals for failure to state a claim are reviewed de novo. Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir.1996).

Appellant’s first claim challenges Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 6068(c), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 6068(g), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103 , Cal. Bus.. & Prof.Code § 6106, and Cal. R. of Prof. Conduct 3-200. Regardless of the test used to determine the validity of those provisions and assuming they implicate some protected speech, Appellant’s first prayer for relief still fails because he has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. First, Appellant does not allege any facts supporting an as-applied challenge, and therefore, his…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that Canatella has waived his Supremacy Clause argument. Because Canatella lacks constitutional standing to raise his other arguments, however, I would not address their merits. Rather, I would dismiss the appeal.

I

We are obligated to consider our jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the case. See Bell v. Bonneville Power Admin., 340 F.3d 945 , 950 (9th Cir.2003), citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (rejecting the doctrine of hypothetical jurisdiction). For Canatella “to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” he “must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983). Thus, Canatella has the burden of establishing what we have referred to as “constitutional standing.” Grove v. Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528 , 1531 (9th Cir.1985). To satisfy the requirements of constitutional standing, Canatella must allege, among other things, an “injury in fact”—…