9th Circuit upholds dismissal of pro se lawsuit against airlines, vaccine makers, and others, finding…
Yellen v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds dismissal of pro se lawsuit against airlines, vaccine makers, and others, finding plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they alleged no concrete personal injury.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Mike Yellen and other pro se plaintiffs against a wide range of defendants including airlines, pharmaceutical companies, and Meta Platforms. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege a concrete, particularized injury to themselves personally. The court also rejected arguments that the district court judge should have recused herself and upheld the denial of further chances to amend the complaint.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects the pro se plaintiffs whose case has now been conclusively dismissed. More broadly, it reinforces existing rules requiring any person suing in federal court to show a specific, personal injury rather than a general objection to others' conduct.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case involved a group of plaintiffs who sued numerous defendants, including major airlines, pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Moderna, CVS Pharmacy, FedEx, Meta Platforms, and the Mayor of Hawaii, among others. The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal district court in Hawaii, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The central legal question was whether the plaintiffs had the right, known as 'standing,' to bring this lawsuit in federal court. To have standing, a plaintiff must show a real, personal injury that is traceable to the defendant's actions and that a court ruling could fix. The Ninth Circuit found the plaintiffs failed this test. Their allegations described broad, general grievances, including claims about conspiracies, rather than specific harms that they personally suffered. Under long-established Supreme Court precedent, a general complaint that laws or the Constitution are being violated is not enough to get into federal court. The plaintiffs also argued that the district court judge should have stepped aside from the case due to possible financial conflicts of interest. The appeals court rejected this, noting the motion for recusal was not filed on time and that the suggestion the judge 'may have had some investments' in defendant companies was pure speculation, not enough to make a reasonable person question the judge's impartiality. Finally, the court addressed whether the plaintiffs should have been given another chance to rewrite their complaint. The district court had already dismissed an earlier version and given specific instructions on how to fix it. The plaintiffs had not followed those instructions, and their key claim about COVID-19 vaccines was nearly identical to the earlier failed version. The appeals court agreed that allowing another amendment would be futile and upheld the dismissal without leave to amend. The panel decided unanimously and the disposition is marked not for publication, meaning it does not set binding legal precedent beyond this case.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIKE YELLEN; DEVON BOWES; No. 25-5747 SARAH BOWES; LELANI BRIGHT; D.C. No. DIANA C. FRANK; SOPHIA HART; 1:25-cv-00002-JAO-BMK SHELBY HOSANA; GREG JONES; KENDALL KELLER; JUSTIN-CHARLES LESLIE; KARL MAGALHAES; LAURIE MEMORANDUM* S. MILLER SKIMMERHORN; PATTI RUBINSTEIN; RICHARD TABER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and PLAINTIFFS IN YELLEN ET AL V. BIDEN ET AL,1:25-CV-00002-JAO-BMK, Plaintiffs, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., on behalf of itself and named defendant Virgin America, Inc.; AIR CANADA; AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., on behalf of itself and named defendant the former US Airways, Inc.; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; DELTA AIR LINES, INC.; FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION; FEDEX CORPORATION; HAWAIIAN * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. AIRLINES, INC.; JAPAN AIRLINES CO., LTD.; MERCK & CO., INC.; MODERNA, INC.; MOKULELE AIRLINES; PFIZER, INC.; SOUTHERN AIRWAYS EXPRESS; SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.; UNITED AIRLINES, INC.; WESTJET AIRLINES, LTD.; MITCH ROTH, Mayor of Hawaii, Mayor Hawaii; META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants - Appellees, and DEFENDANTS IN YELLEN ET AL V. BIDEN ET AL,1:25-CV-00002-JAO-BMK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Jill A. Otake, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026** Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Mike Yellen and additional pro se plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) without leave to amend. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291, and we affirm. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 25-5747 1. The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs lack standing. To establish standing, Plaintiffs must have suffered an “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual and imminent”; the injury must be fairly traceable to Defendants’ conduct; and it must be likely that the injury “will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). “[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Id. at 573-74. We construe pro se pleadings liberally, “especially in civil rights cases,” but we may not “supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled,” and “[v]ague and conclusory allegations . . . are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs fail to plead facts demonstrating that they personally have been harmed by the various conspiracies they allege. Because Plaintiffs fail to allege a concrete and particularized injury, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is warranted. 2. Plaintiffs’ claim that the district court judge should have recused herself is meritless. Plaintiffs failed to timely move for recusal. See United States v. Mikhel, 889 F.3d 1003, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2018). Regardless, Plaintiffs’ intimation 3 25-5747 that the district court “may have had some investments” in some of the defendant companies is sheer speculation. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. Although leave to amend should be given freely, a district court may dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be “futile.” Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs had previous opportunities to amend their complaint. The district court’s order dismissing their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) instructed Plaintiffs to link each Defendant with specific acts or omissions and connect factual allegations to a legal cause of action. Plaintiffs failed to do so. Their claim regarding the harmfulness of COVID-19 vaccines—the only claim which they were given leave to amend—was substantially identical to the version pled in the FAC. Because we agree with the district court that amendment would be futile and we find Plaintiffs’ other arguments unpersuasive, we hold that the district court properly dismissed the SAC without leave to amend. AFFIRMED. 4 25-5747
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.