1	because has not established the likelihood of future injury.
2	Whether the next president to be inaugurated--be it President
3	Bush or someone else--will request or permit the recitation of a
4	prayer at the next inauguration is entirely speculative.
5	Since Newdow has not met the basic prerequisite for
6	injunctive relief--the likelihood of substantial and immediate
7	irreparable injury, his request for injunctive relief must be
8	dismissed--his request for injunctive relief must be dismissed.
9	O'Shea, 414 U.S. at 502, 94 S.Ct. at 679. Since he cannot show
10	the basic prerequisite for declaratory relief--the likelihood of
11	future injury--his request for declaratory relief must also be
12	dismissed.
13	2. Newdow fails to meet the third test for standing
	because he cannot show his claims cannot be redressed
14	in this action.
15	To meet the third requirement of standing--redressability--
16	a plaintiff must show that he "personally would benefit in a
17	tangible way from the court's intervention." VJarth v. Seldin, 422
18	U.S. 490, 508, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2210 (1975).
19	Newdow's request that this court declare that President Bush
20	violated the First Amendment at the inauguration would do little
21	more than provide Newdow with the satisfaction of having a court
22	declare that Rev. Graham's prayer violated the Establishment
23	clause. However, "psychic satisfaction" is not a remedy because
24	it does not redress a cognizable Article III injury. Steel Co.,
25	523 U.S. at 107, 118 S.Ct. at 1019. "Relief that does not remedy
26	the injury suffered cannot bootstrap a plaintiff into federal
27	court; that is the very essence of the redressability
28	requirement." Id. Accordingly, since Newdow cannot meet the
	8