MEMORANDUM **

Wameedh A1 Azzawi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of standing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Braunstein v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 683 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed A1 Azzawi’s action because A1 Azzawi failed to *838 satisfy the requirements for constitutional standing or third party standing. See id. at 1184-85 (setting forth constitutional standing requirements); Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, & Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1163 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth third-party standing requirements).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Al Azzawi’s motions for sanctions (Docket Entry Nos. 22 and 24) are denied.

AFFIRMED.