*2 Before: KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KRONSTADT, [**] District Judge.
La Clínica appeals the district court’s decision that its claim for future injunctive and declaratory relief does not present a case or controversy. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm because La Clínica lacks standing to challenge the legality of Option 2.
Article III standing requires that a plaintiff has (1) suffered an injury in fact; (2) that is traceable to the challenged action; and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable court determination. Snake River Farmers’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 9 F.3d 792, 795 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)). La Clínica has not suffered an injury in fact that is traceable to California’s Medicaid billing methods because as the district court correctly observed, if La Clínica believes that Option 2 is illegal, it can proceed under Option 1. La Clínica has not provided any reason why it cannot proceed under Option 1 or evidence of disadvantage. Also, a favorable court determination would not redress La Clínica’s claimed injury because, if Option 2 was unavailable on the * * The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
ground that it violated federal law, La Clínica would have to utilize Option 1, an option freely available to it now.
AFFIRMED.