William James Mathew Wallace Ii v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM JAMES MATHEW WALLACE
II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
KENDRIC CHRISTIAN JOHNSON; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55570
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-03288-FMO-GJS
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55570
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 of 2 --