v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 283 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir.2002); see also Michael C. Smith, O’Con-nor’s FEDERAL RULES: ClVIL TRIALS 2007 63 (2007). Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant Midwest Gaming caused it injury, nor that the requested declaratory relief would redress such injury if it had occurred. 2. There must be a real risk of future harm A plaintiff must allege facts from which it appears there is a substantial likelihood that he will suffer injury in the future. There must be a substantial and continuing controversy between two adverse parties. Graham v. Hill, 444 F.Supp. 584, 588 (W.D.Tex.l978)(<HOLDING>). The continuation of the dispute must be
holding that the case or controversy requirement applies with equal force to actions for declaratory judgment recognizing that the case or controversy requirement for standing is no less strict in a declaratory judgment proceeding than in any suit where other relief is sought holding that actual controversy requirement is met where there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment holding that if a declaratory judgment will not end the controversy it is not proper holding that when the government conceded that a taxpayer has a right to monetary relief a justiciable case or controversy no longer exists and any declaratory interpretation would not be incident to a judgment