
    David ZAITZEFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipality; Daniel Satterberg, King County Prosecutor, those in privity with him, in re RCW 9.41.250 and Sea v Evans, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35955
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 21, 2017
    David Zaitzeff, Pro Se
    Scott P. Kennedy, Gary Theodore Smith, Assistant City Attorney, Seattle City Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee City of Seattle
    David James Eldred, Esquire, Senior Litigating Attorney, John R. Zeldenrust, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Zaitzeff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that Revised Washington Code section 9.41.250 and Seattle Municipal Code sections 12A.14.080 and .083 violate his First and Second Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilson v. Kayo Oil Co., 563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Zaitzeff s action because Zaitzeff failed to allege facts sufficient to establish constitutional standing.to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a statute. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth factors to consider in evaluating genuineness of a claimed threat of prosecution); San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Comm’n v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must show a “genuine threat of imminent prosecution” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also Libertarian Party v. Bowen, 709 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013) (in First Amendment context, courts consider “whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, and the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute”).

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