
    Garrison S. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. BEARD; Kelly Harrington, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15967
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed March 3, 2017
    Garrison S. Johnson, Pro Se
    Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, Rosailda Perez, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Garrison S. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection violation in connection with Inmate Advisory Council (“IAC”) elections. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo questions of constitutional standing. Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action on the ground that Johnson lacked constitutional standing because Johnson failed to show that the challenged prison regulations concerning the IAC elections resulted in a concrete and particularized injury to Johnson. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (setting forth elements of Article III standing); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 946 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While racial classification is subject to strict scrutiny, a plaintiff, to challenge such classification, must establish standing through showing a particularized denial of equal treatment.”); Arakaki v. Hawaii, 314 F.3d 1091, 1097 (9th Cir. 2002) (plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge Hawaiian statutory and constitutional provisions that required that the appointed trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“OHA”) be citizens of Hawaiian ancestry because neither plaintiff had been denied appointment as OHA trustee).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Johnson’s action for lack of Article III standing, we do not reach other issues raised by the parties regarding the equal protection claim.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion for reconsideration because Johnson failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and factors warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth factors warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

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

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     