MEMORANDUM **
John Barth appeals pro se from the district courts 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 Fedn of Labor (AFL-CIO) v. INS, 306 F.3d 842, 868 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Barths 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 Barths 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 1172, 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 Barths contention that the district court was biased against him and that he was entitled to discovery assistance.
Barths request that this court try his case, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.