Young v. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AUG j 1 2DS9
Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
Reginald Young, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
Civil Action No. 09 1659
R. Martinez et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis
and pro se complaint. The plaintiff is incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary at
Allenwood, Pennsylvania, and has filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages in
excess of one million dollars for alleged conduct by prison staff at Allenwood. Because the
defendants are federal officials and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not apply to federal officials, the
complaint will be liberally construed to assert a so-called Bivens claim. See Bivens v. Six
Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
The conduct giving rise to the claim is not alleged to have occurred in the District of
Columbia and therefore this venue is not proper for litigating the plaintiffs claims. See 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b). Where venue is improper the court "shall dismiss" the complaint unless the
court finds it in the interest of justice to transfer the complaint to the court in which venue is
proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In this case, the court will dismiss the complaint because it
does not find it in the interest of justice to transfer the complaint.
While the complaint alleges various wrongs by prison staff, including unjustified
restrictions on plaintiff s recreation and freedom within the institution, and his access to legal
telephone calls, pens, paper, envelopes and stamps for legal mail, the gravamen of the complaint
centers around the prison staff s alleged use of tobacco products near the plaintiff and near
plaintiffs food. See Complaint at 5,6 & Exs. Contrary to what the plaintiff appears to
understand, see id. at 5 (seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendants violated plaintiffs
constitutional rights when they consumed tobacco products in the prison and in the presence of
the plaintiff), the use of tobacco products by prison staff does not constitute a violation of the
plaintiff s constitutional rights. Bivens actions are limited to addressing constitutional injuries,
and even then does not provide a remedy in every case. Wormley v. United States, 601 F. Supp.
2d 27, 35 (D.D.C. 2009) ("Bivens remedies have been extended [only] to a limited number of
scenarios"). This complaint does not allege facts that support an inference that the plaintiff has a
Bivens action available to him. Therefore, on its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court
will dismiss the complaint for improper venue.
2