The plaintiff must show that he "has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury" as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both "real and immediate," not "conjectural" or "hypothetical."

An injunction] is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again in a similar way

A plaintiff has standing to sue for injunctive relief when there is "real or immediate threat" that the party will suffer an injury in the future.

Therein, the Court held that a plaintiff seeking to enjoin the Los Angeles Police Department from the use of chokeholds lacked standing because he failed to show that he was "likely to suffer future injury from the use of the chokeholds by police officers

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy.

To have standing to seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must establish a "real or immediate threat" of injury.

T] he capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations, and generally only where the named plaintiff can make a reasonable showing that he will again be subjected to the alleged illegality

Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects

Plaintiffs must demonstrate a `personal stake in the outcome'in order to `assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues' necessary for the proper resolution of constitutional questions

For purposes of standing, when a plaintiff asks for such prospective relief, she must demonstrate that she is " `realistically threatened by a repetition of h [er] experience.'"