Here is a summary from the reply.
1. Venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is improper because Commonwealth
defendants reside in the Middle District of Pennsylvania; moreover, because plaintiff is challenging a PennDOT regulation, all of the events and omissions allegedly giving rise toplaintiff’s lawsuit arose in the Middle District.
a) For venue purposes, the residence of a state agency or state official is the state
capital, even when branch offices of the state agency are maintained in other parts of the state. b) Harrisburg is the logical and administratively convenient location to have the action heard.
2. To the extent plaintiff sues PennDOT under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Eleventh Amendment bars his claims; similarly, PennDOT is not a “person” within the meaning of Section 1983.
3. Federal regulations do not preempt 67 Pa. Code §§ 83.1 et seq. (“PennDOT
4. The PennDOT regulation is not void for vagueness.
5. Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the legality of the PennDOT regulation.