1	669, 676. In this circuit, claims for declaratory as well as
2	injunctive relief must satisfy the requirement that there be
3	"continuing, present adverse effects." Blair v. Shanahan, 38
4	F.3d 1514, 1519 (9th Cir. 1994). In an action for declaratory
5	relief a plaintiff must establish the likelihood of future
6	substantial and immediate irreparable harm. Hodgers-Durgin v.
7	DeLaVina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 1999)(quoting O'Shea).
8	Newdow's complaint does not seek damages, but rather seeks
9	only a declaration that President Bush violated the First
10	Amendment (Complaint, Prayer, H I) and the issuance of an
11	injunction preventing President Bush from "repeating this or
12	engaging in any similar religious acts." Complaint, Prayer,
13	H II. Newdow cannot show that he is any danger of suffering
14	immediate, irreparable harm. Indeed, all he alleged in the
15	Complaint is that he watched the inauguration on television on
16	January 20, 2001, over three months ago. Complaint, H 26.
17	Nowhere does Newdow allege that he still suffers some adverse
18	effect from the January 20, 2001 prayer. This is fatal to
19	Newdow's standing to request injunctive relief because as O'Shea
20	instructs, allegations of past injury with no present adverse
21	effects are insufficient to establish the existence of an
22	"actual, ongoing case or controversy."(citations omitted). Lewis
23	v. Continental Bank Corporation, 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S.Ct.
24	1249, 1253 (1990).
25	Morever, there is no threat of immediate harm because the
26	next possible opportunity for Newdow to be offended by an
27	inauguration prayer is four years from now.
28	Similarly, Newdow's claim for declaratory relief is not ripe
	7