v. McBride, 323 F.3d 191, 194 (2d Cir.2003) (“This court construes appellate briefs submitted by pro se litigants liberally and reads such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.”) (citation omitted). Similarly, Triestman’s complaint uses broad language in its assertion that the BOP “[flailed to institute and enforce proper staffing and patrolling for each wing of the housing units during lockdown, and thus did not provide due diligence and emergency response [sic] when such emergency occurred.... ” The words “institute and enforce” quite plainly “suggest” two separate but complimentary arguments: (1) that FCI Ray Brook’s staffing policy fell so far outside the range of appropriate judg e been dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). See Aurecchione, 426 F.3d at 638 (<HOLDING>). While expressing no ultimate view of the
holding that the court may consider an article not attached to the complaint in determining whether to dismiss the complaint because the article was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and because the plaintiffs did not challenge its authenticity holding that a plaintiffs complaint survived rule 12b1 dismissal where the plaintiff made a colorable pleading of subject matter jurisdiction upon which the district court could have relied to adjudicate the complaint holding in an appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 that when the papers before the sixth circuit indicate that the plaintiff could submit an amended complaint that would state a claim upon which relief can be granted the proper course is to remand to permit the plaintiff to amend holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal