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

seeking damages in

excess of one million dollars for alleged conduct by prison staff at Allenwood. Because the

defendants are federal officials and

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,

(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

(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

(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

(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,

(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

(a), the court

will dismiss the complaint for improper venue.

2