BILLY L. EDWARDS, AKA Lord Punchall v. Mischel L. Grisham, named as Susann Martinez Administration;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY L. EDWARDS, AKA Lord Punchall,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MISCHEL L. GRISHAM, named as Susann
Martinez Administration; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15612
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00350-RM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Billy L. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of federal law arising from a real estate
transaction in New Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for improper venue. Immigrant Assistance Project of
* 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).
FILED
JUL 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15612
the L.A. County Fed’n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 868 (9th Cir.
2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s action for improper venue
because Edwards failed to establish that all of the defendants reside in Arizona or
that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred there. See 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought).
Contrary to Edwards’s contentions, defendants were entitled to file a motion
to dismiss in lieu of an answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --