United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Schwab, District Judge.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
respectfully recommended that the motion to dismiss or change
venue filed by the Department of Corrections Defendants [ECF
No. 17] be granted in part. The motion to change venue should
be granted while the Court should defer ruling on the motion
to dismiss. It is further recommended that a ruling should
also be deferred on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant
Stanish [ECF No. 15]. A decision on the motions to dismiss is
best left to the transferee court.
separate Order filed this date, Plaintiffs motion for
appointment of counsel [ECF No. 5] is dismissed without
Relevant Procedural History
31, 2017, Plaintiff Geronimo Rosado, Jr., initiated this
civil rights action by filing apro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a former
prisoner who is suing multiple Defendants for alleged
violations of his constitutional rights during his
incarceration within the State Correctional System. Plaintiff
named thirty-one Defendants to this action and identified
each as to their place of employment. Of the thirty-one named
Defendants, the majority are identified as working at
institutions (SCI-Dallas and SCI-Camp Hill) that are not
within the Western District of Pennsylvania.
after the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion
for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 5.
service of the complaint, the Department of Corrections
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper
venue [ECF No. 17] and Defendant Dr. Stanish filed a motion
to dismiss [ECF No. 15]. Plaintiff has opposed the pending
dispositive motions both with opposition briefs and a
proposed amended complaint. See ECF Nos. 34-44.
Standards of Review
Pro Se Litigants
se pleadings, "however inartfully pleaded, "
must be held to "less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). If the court can
reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the
litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to
cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories,
poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's
unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. Boag v.
MacDoueall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United States ex
rel. Montgomery v. Bierley, 141 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir.
1969) (petition prepared by a prisoner may be inartfully
drawn and should be read "with a measure of
tolerance"); Smith v. U.S. District Court, 956
F.2d 295 (D.C.Cir. 1992); Freeman v. Dep't of
Corrections, 949 F.2d 360 (10th Cir. 1991). Under our
liberal pleading rules, during the initial stages of
litigation, a district court should construe all allegations
in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v.
Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997). See,
e.g., Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d
Cir. 1996) (discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard);
Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co.. 906 F.2d 100, 103
(3d Cir. 1990) (same). Because Plaintiff is a pro se
litigant, this Court may consider facts and make inferences
where it is appropriate.