14-page complaint, App. 16. The only specific allegations Sause makes to that effect are her assertions that Lindsey “[t]hreatened [her] again” sometime in March 2015 and “[l]ectured” her that “ ‘[fjreedom of [s]peech’ means nothing.” App. 15-17. These allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that Sause faces “a good chance of being likewise injured in the future.” Barney, 143 F.3d at 1306 n.3 (quoting Facio, 929 F.2d at 544). That is, Sause fails to establish she “face[s] a real and immediate threat” that (1) the defendants will again enter her home while investigating a crime; (2) she will again kneel and pray; and (3) the defendants will again order her to stand up and stop praying so they can harass her. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105, 103 S.Ct. 1660; see Barney, 143 F.3d at 1306 & n.3 (<HOLDING>). True, Sause’s complaint indicates she
holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they failed to demonstrate any likelihood that they would end up back in jail where alleged constitutional violations occurred holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue recognizing that plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory relief on arbitration provision because she did not file or serve any lawsuit alleging that defendant  or anyone representing any of the defendants has informed her that they will seek to invoke the arbitration policy holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit under seqraceqr because they failed to allege any property interest in the community gardens at issue holding that a class of juveniles had standing to seek injunctive relief in federal court against future interrogations by a police squad because of the strong likelihood that the challenged interrogation methods would be used again