|LEA ANN CHRONES, Warden; JEANNE WOODFORD, Director CDC; B. LACKEY, Officer,|
"[A] district court may . . . dismiss under § 1915 . . . for improper venue" regardless of whether the defendants raise the issue as an affirmative defense. Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006). Since all of the defendants reside in California, venue is proper in Utah only if it is where "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The events giving rise to Mr. Moss's civil rights claim--the alleged wrongful seizures of his property and interference with his right of access to the courts--all occurred in California. Consequently, the District of Utah is not the proper venue to bring this action.
In his appellate brief, Mr. Moss argues for the first time that his property was sent to Utah. He did not raise this argument before the district court, and it is therefore waived.
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
*.After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.