Whinery

Xiangyuan Zhu appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing the complaint without prejudice based on improper venue. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a dismissal for improper venue for an abuse of discretion. Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251 , 1253 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.

Where jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity grounds, a civil action may only be brought in:

28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b). We have held that a district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for improper venue. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.1986) (“In the absence of a waiver, we can find no reason to hold that the district court erred by raising the issue of defective venue on its own motion.”).

The district court issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for improper venue (“OSC”), and Zhu submitted a response. The district court determined that venue was not proper in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“Central District of California”) under § 1391(b) 1 because Zhu’s complaint alleges that the defendant, David Scott Whinery, is a Kansas resident and that all events…