Stephen Kerr EUGSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION; Salvador A. Mungia, President, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Steven G. Toole, President-Elect, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Mark A. Johnson, Immediate Past-President, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; G. Geoffrey Gibbs, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Brian L. Comstock, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Loren Scott Etengoff, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board Governors; Anthony David Gipe, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board Governors; Lori S. Haskell, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; David S. Heller, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Nancy L. Isserlis, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Leland B. Kerr, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Carla C. Lee, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Roger A. Leishman, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Catherine L. Moore, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Patrick A. Palace, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Marc L. Silverman; Brenda Williams, Washington State Bar Association Officers and Board of Governors; Washington State Supreme Court; Barbara A. Madsen, Chief Justice, Washington State Supreme Court; Charles W. Johnson, Justice, Washington State Supreme Court; Gerry L. Alexander; Richard B. Sanders; Tom Chambers, Justice, Washington State Supreme Court; Susan J. Owens, Justice, Washington State Supreme Court; Mary E. Fairhurst, Administrative Law Judge, Justice, Washington State Supreme Court; James M. Johnson, Administrative Law Judge, Justice, Washington State Supreme Court; Debra L. Stephens, Justice, Washington State Supreme Court, Defendants-Appellees, 474 F. App'x 624

MEMORANDUM Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Eugster (Eugster) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit on standing and ripeness grounds. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Eugster’s complaint does not allege that he will ever again be subject to disciplinary proceedings.

Because Eugster has not presented any allegations about what he will do in the future that might subject him to the allegedly unconstitutional attorney disciplinary process again, we hold that Eugster lacks standing to pursue his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 862 (9th Cir.1992). For the same reason, we hold that Eugster’s claims rest on contingent future events that may not occur. Thus, Eugster’s claims are not ripe. See Bova v. City of Medford, 564 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir.2009) (citation omitted).

In light of our conclusions, we decline to reach the remaining issues raised by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Eug-ster’s complaint. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.