NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM JAMES MATHEW WALLACE No. 20-55570 II, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-03288-FMO-GJS Plaintiff-Appellant, and MEMORANDUM* KENDRIC CHRISTIAN JOHNSON; et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). California state prisoner William James Mathew Wallace II appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unsanitary conditions in his former prison after denying Wallace’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for improper venue, Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. Cty. Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 868 (9th Cir. 2002), and for an abuse of discretion a denial of an IFP motion, O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s action for improper venue because Wallace failed to establish that any defendant resides in the Central District of California or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“A district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 20-55570 20-55570 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. William Wallace, II v. Department of Corrections And 24 February 2021 Prisoner Unpublished 3e72806a4e536998e1e5a3734b26310d317d4cb8
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals