Shaun Darnell Garland v. A. K. Skribner;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
A. K. SKRIBNER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15079
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00198-OWW-
GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010**
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The district court properly dismissed Shaun Darnell Garland’s (“Garland”)
claims against defendant Lewis, without prejudice, so that Garland could re-file
them in the proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (“A civil action . . . may . . . be
brought only in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15079 2
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is
the subject of the action is situated . . .”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (permitting
the court, on just terms, to drop a party).
Contrary to Garland’s contention, the district court did not err by denying
his motion to transfer him from state to federal custody because he had already
been transferred to a different state prison. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368
(9th Cir. 1995).
Garland’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --