NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGEL LUIS CRUZADO, No. 23-4451 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:22-cv-01474-JNW v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF WASHINGTON; SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SEATTLE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Jamal N. Whitehead, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Angel Luis Cruzado appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in the

December 2017 issuance and the December 2018 renewal of a civil domestic

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). violence protection order by the King County Superior Court. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of

standing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Winsor v. Sequoia Benefits & Ins. Servs.,

LLC, 62 F.4th 517, 523 (9th Cir. 2023). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cruzado’s action because Cruzado

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he remains subject to a protection order

or that he is likely to be subject to another order. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,

594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021) (explaining the plaintiff’s burden of showing “an injury

[that] would likely be redressed by judicial relief”); Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark

Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 967 (9th Cir. 2018) (“For injunctive relief, . . . the threat of

injury must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cruzado’s motion

for reconsideration because Cruzado failed to set forth any basis for relief. See

Havensight Cap. LLC v. Nike, Inc., 891 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2018) (standard

of review).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-4451