Carl Eric Olsen, Petitioner, v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Respondent.

No. 09-1162

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

332 Fed. Appx. 359

August 25, 2009, Submitted
August 26, 2009, Filed

NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

PRIOR HISTORY:

Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency.

COUNSEL: Carl E Olsen, Petitioner, Pro se, Des Moines, IA.

For Drug Enforcement Administration, Respondent: Melissa N. Patterson, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC; Matthew G. Whitaker, U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Des Moines, IA.

JUDGES: Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

[360] PER CURIAM.

Carl Olsen petitions this court, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 877, for review of a final determination by the Drug Enforcement Administration denying his request for a rescheduling of marijuana based upon its medical usefulness.  He maintains that he has been injured by his inability to use marijuana for religious purposes.  Upon de novo review, we conclude that Olsen lacks standing under Article III of the United States Constitution.  See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (Article III standing requires “injury in fact,” causal connection between injury and conduct complained of, and likelihood that injury will be redressed by favorable decision); Young Am. Corp. v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc., 424 F.3d 840, 843 (8th Cir. 2005) (Article III standing is question of subject matter jurisdiction which this court reviews de novo); Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430, 433, 351 U.S. App. D.C. 344 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (§ 811(a)(2) does not provide “automatic standing” to petition federal court for review of DEA’s denial of request; petitioner must have Article III standing).  Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.