Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180222_0000541.WPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:40:50+00:00

Document:
JANE DOE LAW LIBRARIAN, et al, Defendants.
It is 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.
By separate Order filed this date, Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 5] is dismissed without prejudice.
On July 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.
Shortly after the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 5.
Following 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.
Pro 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.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.