Johnson v. Franchise Tax Board

Good Law
61 F. App'x 494
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 21, 2003No. 02-56580; D.C. No. CV-02-00319-GLTCalifornia467 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*495 MEMORANDUM **

Brad R. Johnson appeals pro se the district court’s sua sponte Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his action alleging violations of the Federal Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), the Fourteenth Amendment, and state tort law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim, Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986 , 991 (9th Cir.1987), and for abuse of discretion a decision to change venue, King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998).

The Illinois district court did not abuse its discretion when it transferred Johnson’s ease to the Central District of California because no events alleged in the complaint took place in Illinois, a substantial part of the events took place in California, and all defendants resided in California. See King, 963 F.2d at 1304 .

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s claim under the FCRA because the provision…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.