BILLY L. EDWARDS V. MISCHEL L. GRISHAM, No. 21-15612 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS BILLY L. EDWARDS, AKA Lord Punchall, No. 21-15612 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00350-RM MEMORANDUM* MISCHEL L. GRISHAM, named as Susann Martinez Administration; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Billy L. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of federal law arising from a real estate transaction in New Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for improper venue. Immigrant Assistance Project of * 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). 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 Edwards’s action for improper venue because Edwards failed to establish that all of the defendants reside in Arizona 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). Contrary to Edwards’s contentions, defendants were entitled to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-15612

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.