Pl aintif f a lso cla im s to be bri ng ing thi s ac tio n und er a nu m be r of oth er f ed era l st atutes , 1 inc lud ing 42 U. S. C. § 1 98 3. Se cti on 19 83 , h ow ev er, is i na

pp lic ab le, as t

he statut e re qu ire s st ate action and does not apply to federa l officials act ing under colorof federal law. Settles v. U.S. Pa ro le C om m’n , 4 29 F. 3d

10 98 , 1 10 4 (D .C . C ir. 20 05 ). M ore ov er, no t on ly h as p lai nti ff fa ile d to state how the facts he all eges would support a claim under the otherstatute s that he ci tes, but Co ng res s h as n ot w aiv ed

so ve rei gn

imm un ityfo r su its see kin g m on eydam ag es t hat ar ise un de r the Constitut ion. Zinda v. Johnson , 4 63 F. Su pp . 2 d 4 5, 48 -49 (D .D .C . 2 00 6). Because plaint iff is no longer being hel d at the Guam facility, the r equest for injunc tive 2 rel ief wo uld ap pe ar t o b e m oo t.

UNITED STATE S DISTRICT COURT FO R T HE DI ST RI CT OF CO LU MB IA

_____________________________ ) AL I P AR TO VI , ) ) Pl ain tif f, )

) v. ) Ci vilAc tio n N o. 09 -04 61 (E SH )

) JOSEPH P. GALOSKI, et al ., ) ) De fen da nt s. ) _____________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AN D ORDER Plaintiff is an immigration detainee confined at the Flor ence Correct ional Center , a pri vatel y ru

n c orr ect ion s f

aci lity lo cat ed

in F lor en ce, Ar izo na . In thi s ac tio n, bro ug ht p urs uant t o Bi ven s v. Six

Un kn ow n N

am ed Agen ts , 4 03 U. S. 38 8 (1 97 1), he all eg es t hat w hil e h e w as de tai ne d at an

imm igr ati on

fa cil ityin Guam

durin g 2 00 1-2 00 3, he did no t have acc ess to a

law library, mailbox or legal mailbox, thereby de nying him access to the cour ts in viol ation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourt eenth Amendm ents, as well as § 115 of Public Law Num ber 99- 60 3, the Imm igr ati on

Re fo rm an d C ontro l A ct o f 1 98 6. He nam es a s d ef en dants tw o e m

plo ye es 1 of the imm igr ati on

fa cil ityin b oth

the ir o ff ici al and ind ivi du al c ap aci tie s an d s eek s $ 5 m ill ion in money dam ages and an inj unction. 2No te that § 1 39 1(e ), whic h e sta bli sh es p rop er v enue in c ase s whe re the de fe nd an t is an 3 of fi cer or e m plo ye e o f t

he Un ite d S tat es a cti ng in h is o ff ici al c ap aci ty o r un de r co lor of leg al authorit y, does not apply t o Bi ven s actions. See Staffor d v. Briggs , 4 44 U. S. 52 7, 54 2 (1 98 0). 2 The alleged depr ivations of acce ss to a li brary and mailbox were not committed by de fe nd an ts i n th e D istric t of Co lum bia . Whe re, as h ere , th e C ourt’ s juris dic tio n is no t ba sed
so lel y o n d ive rsi ty o f c iti zen sh ip, ve nu e is pro pe r in : (1) a judi cial dis trictwhere any defendant res ides, if all de fendants reside in the same State, (2) a judi cial dis trictin which a substa ntial par t of the events or om iss ion s g ivi ng ris e to the cla im oc curre d,
. . . o r (3 ) a j ud ici al d istric t in wh ich any d ef en dant i s su

bje ct t o p ers on al j uri sd ict ion at the tim e th e ac tio n is co mm en ced , if

the re i s n o d istric t in

wh ich the act ion

m ayoth erw ise be bro ug ht. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Therefore, venue is notproper here . However, where a case i s filed laying 3

ve nu e in the wr on g d ivi sio n o r di str ict , th e d istric t co urt m ay , if it b e in the int ere sts of

jus tic e, transfer the case to any di strictor divisi on where it coul d have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 14 06 (a)
. Accordingly, itis hereby ORDERED that, pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the Cler k’s Office is direct ed to TRANS FER th is ca se to th e D is tr ic t C ou rtof G ua m. SO ORDERED .

/ s / ELLEN SEG AL HUV ELLE United States DistrictJudge Date: April 13, 2009