Ortiz
Ortiz v. Orange County Transportation Authority
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Jorgie A. Ortiz appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the question of whether venue is proper. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 841 (9th Cir.1986). We review for abuse of discretion dismissals for improper venue, Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251 , 1253 (9th Cir.1997), and decisions on discovery issues, Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
Venue lies in the judicial district where the defendant resides, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(1), or “a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim occurred,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2). The district court properly dismissed Ortiz’s action for lack of venue because no defendant resides in, nor did any of the alleged events take place in, the Southern District of California. See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action rather than transferring it to another district, given the allegations in the…