1	F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) ("Appellants argue that the other students, parents of Oroville
2	students and others likely to attend future graduations joined in the third amended complaint
3	have standing to bring a claim to enjoin the school from prohibiting sectarian speeches and
4	prayers as part of the graduation ceremony. This argument fails because any injury to these
5	parties is too speculative to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III....[T]he other
6	students, parents and others likely to attend future Oroville graduations lack standing because the
7	likelihood that they will suffer a future injury depends upon the highly speculative assumption
8	that a student seeking to give a sectarian speech or prayer will be chosen as valedictorian or
9	salutatorian, or will be elected by classmates to deliver an invocation.") The undersigned
10	similarly reasoned that Newdow lacked standing to enjoin the type of prayer to be given at the
11	next inauguration, if any, because one could not with any reasonable accuracy predict its content,
12	i.e., the future speakers would be unknown as would be their proclivities to speak prayers with
13	more than a general reference to God.
14	During the course of objections to the December 28 Findings and
15	Recommendations, Newdow sought to amend his complaint to bring in the past chairman of the
16	Congressional Committee associated with the Inauguration festivities (Senator Mitch
17	McConnell). Plaintiff did so because of the Supreme Court's language in Franklin v.
18	Massachusets. 505 U.S. 788, 802, 803, 112 S. Ct. 2767,2776-77 (1992) suggesting that although
19	no jurisdiction existed to enjoin the President, such jurisdiction might be available in suits
20	against heads of Executive agencies. See Findings and Recommendations at p. 5 n.4. Judge
21	Karlton ordered the undersigned to reconsider the December 28 Findings and Recommendations
22	in light of the motion to amend and proposed amended complaint. Order filed February 21,
23	2002.
24	The parties set a hearing on the undersigned's calendar on March 21,2002, to
25	consider the motion to amend. For the reasons expressed below, the undersigned denies
26	Newdow's motion to amend and resubmits the December 28 Findings and Recommendations.
	3