Get Outdoors II challenges the discretionary provisions contained in the City's sign ordinance and the absence of a time-limit provision. However, Get Outdoors II's applications to erect billboard structures were denied on grounds that are constitutionally valid, and neither its filings nor its actions in this case have evinced any intent to file permit applications that comply with these requirements. Thus, Get Outdoors II cannot show that it would
ever be genuinely threatened by an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case. In other words, Get Outdoors II is not a plaintiff who “might have had a license for the asking.” No change in the permit procedure would result in the approval of the permits it requests.
See KH Outdoor, 482 F.3d at 1304–05 (dismissing all claims for lack of redressability). Further, because its permits were independently invalid, we cannot say there it suffered any injury compensable by even nominal damages.
See County of Riverside, 337 F.3d at 1115. We therefore hold that Get Outdoors II lacks standing to challenge the permitting process.