Defendants also argue that plaintiff has failed to allege the necessary personal involvement of the named defendants which is required to support an allegation against them of a violation of the constitutional right of plaintiff to equal protection. See Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1478 (3d Cir.1990). A review of the complaint shows, however, that plaintiff has made allegations regarding how each of the defendants was involved in the various decisions to remove his administrative powers. See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 32 (implying that all defendants were involved in the March 29, 1996 decision to stay the attempts by plaintiff to transfer personnel), 34 (stating that all defen ’n of State, County and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310, 314-15 (3d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The district court case relied upon by
holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this holding that at the motion to dismiss stage a complaint sufficiently alleges individual involvement if it asserts that a defendant had oversight over and approved the allegedly discriminatory actions holding that at the motion to dismiss stage a court is not obliged to accept as true legal conclusions holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion