Opinion
21-15119
07-28-2021
JOHN BARTH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MABRY CARLTON RANCH, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 19, 2021 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 5:20-cv-09288-NC for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
John Barth appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing for improper venue his action alleging federal racketeering claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Immigrant Assistance Project of the L.A. County Fed'n of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 868 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Barth's action for improper venue because Barth failed to establish that any defendant resides in the Northern District of California or that a substantial part of the events 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.").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Barth's motion to seal because Barth failed to establish that the documents were subject to sealing. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1175, 1178 n.3 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard of review); N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 79-5(b) (providing that a request to file documents under seal must establish "that the document[s] . . . are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law").
We reject as meritless Barth's contention that the district court was biased against him and that he was entitled to discovery assistance.
Barth's request that this court try his case, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED. [*] 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).