Kendric Christian Johnson; et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

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.