of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dr. Araya also requests that this Court enjoin the District of Columbia from “further taking of private properties for private use without a public use or public purpose.” Compl. at 22-23, ¶ 65. As the District correctly points out, see Defs.’ Opp. SJ Mot. at 4-5, this claim for relief must also be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but on a different ground — namely, that Dr. Araya lacks standing to assert such a claim. Dr. Araya has not shown any likelihood that he will again be subject to the District’s disposition of his property by granting possession over it to another person. Consequently, he lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (<HOLDING>); see also NB ex rel. Peacock v. District of
holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention holding that the threat of irreparable harm must be immediate holding that a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must show a real or immediate threat that he will be wronged again to establish article iii standing holding that because article iii standing is jurisdictional it must be decided before other legal issues