902 F. 2d 1578 - Kunz v. State of Alaska
902 F2d 1578 Kunz v. State of Alaska
902 F.2d 1578
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Rudolph L. KUNZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-35508.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 1990.*
Decided May 21, 1990.
Before HUG, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
Rudolph Kunz appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action for lack of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1406(a). We review for an abuse of discretion, Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.1986), and affirm.
Kunz filed the instant action in the Western District of Washington alleging that the State of Alaska's Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission denied him his application for various commercial fishing permits in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court found that venue lay only in the District Court of Alaska and dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1406(a) because "where the underlying basis of the claim is so thin, as here, it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this case to the district court where it should have been brought."
A civil action raising a federal question may be brought only in the judicial district where all the defendants reside or in which the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391(b). When an action involves a constitutional challenge to an Alaska statute, venue lies only in Alaska. District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, M.E.B.A. v. State of Alaska, 682 F.2d 797, 798-99 (9th Cir.1982). If a case is filed in a court lacking venue, the district court in which the case is filed "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." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1406(a).
Here, Kunz challenges Alaska's laws governing the state's limited entry fisheries system. Therefore, the district court was correct in finding that venue lay only in Alaska. See District No. 1, 682 F.2d at 798. Moreover, Kunz's complaint stated only conclusory allegations that his federal constitutional rights were violated. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the interests of justice did not require a transfer of this action to Alaska. See Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.
AFFIRMED.