1

 Within the body of the complaint, Plaintiff makes allegations against James Sherman,

Donald Reich, Nurse Glenn, and Correctional Officer Pabon. However, to date, Plaintiff has not

made any attempt to amend his complaint to add these four individuals as defendants in this

action.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM MANNS, )

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) C.A.No. 05-315 Erie

) District Judge McLaughlin

BUREAU OF PRISONS and ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

FCI McKean Staff )

Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants

[Document # 18] be granted.

II REPORT

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff, William Manns, a federal inmate formerly detained at the Federal Correctional

Institution at McKean, filed this civil rights action. Plaintiff names only the Bureau of Prisons, 

“FCI-McKean and [unnamed] staff” as Defendants in this matter and alleges that these

Defendants1 have violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and Plaintiff has filed a brief in opposition. 

The issues are ripe for disposition by this Court.

Case 1:05-cv-00315-SJM-SPB Document 24 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 4
2

B. Standards of Review

1. Pro Se Pleadings

Pro se pleadings, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim

if it appears “<beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief.’” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521(1972), quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 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. MacDougall, 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. Department 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

Company, 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990)(same). Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, this

Court will consider facts and make inferences where it is appropriate. 

2. Motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(1)

When a motion to dismiss is made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction which attacks the complaint as deficient on its face, the Court

must take all allegations in the complaint as true. Mortensen v. First Federal Sav. and Loan

Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891(3d Cir. 1977). However, when the motion attacks the existence of

subject matter jurisdiction in fact, no presumptive truthfulness attaches to plaintiff's allegations

and the Court may weigh the evidence to satisfy itself that subject matter jurisdiction exists in

Case 1:05-cv-00315-SJM-SPB Document 24 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 4
3

fact. Id. at 891. See also Carpet Group Intern. v. Oriental Rug Importers Ass'n, Inc., 227 F.3d

62, 69 (3rd Cir. 2000); Poling v. K. Hovnanian Enterprises, 99 F.Supp.2d 502, 515 (D.N.J.

2000).

C. Defendants Bureau of Prisons and FCI-McKean

Defendants Bureau of Prisons and FCI-McKean move to dismiss on the basis of

sovereign immunity. Under the principle of sovereign immunity, the United States cannot be

sued for damages unless it consents to being sued. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538

(1980). The terms of the government's consent define the court's jurisdiction over the case. 

Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U.S. 156, 160 (1981). A plaintiff attempting to sue any government

agency, such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons or a specific prison, “may not rely on the general

federal question jurisdiction ... but must identify a specific statutory provision that waives the

government’s sovereign immunity.” Clinton County Commissioners v. United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 116 F.3d 1018, 1021 (3d Cir. 1997). Section 1983 does not

confer jurisdiction over federal agencies. See Hindes v. F.D.I.C., 137 F.3d 148, 158 (3d Cir.

1998). In this regard, the motion to dismiss should be granted and the Bureau of Prisons and

FCI-McKean should be dismissed from this case due to lack of jurisdiction.

III CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the motion to dismiss

filed by Defendants [Document # 18] be granted.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local

Rule 72.1.4B, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written

objections to this report. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the

date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to timely file objections may constitute

a waiver of any appellate rights.

Case 1:05-cv-00315-SJM-SPB Document 24 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 4
4

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: September 28, 2006

Case 1:05-cv-00315-SJM-SPB Document 24 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 4