to submit the results as part of his law school application. These are particularized injuries judicially cognizable under our standing jurisprudence. See, e.g., Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 262, 123 S.Ct. 2411, 156 L.Ed.2d 257 (2003) (inability to compete on equal footing with other applicants a cognizable injury-in-fact); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 757 n. 22, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (“[S]tigmatic injury ... is judicially cognizable to the extent that [the plaintiff is] personally subject to discriminatory treatment.”). Plaintiff also alleges that he wishes to reapply to law school free of the requirement that he submit an LSAT score, thereby establishing an “imminent” harm for purposes of seeking prospective relief. See Gratz, 539 U.S. at 262, 123 S.Ct. 2411 (<HOLDING>); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl.
holding it is the relators burden to provide this court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief holding that whenever a litigant meets the requirements of mcr 2605 it is sufficient to establish standing to seek a declaratory judgment holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction holding that allegation of cipa violation is sufficient to confer standing holding that allegation that applicant is able and ready to reapply is sufficient to establish standing to seek prospective relief