ALD-185 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1693
___________
STEVEN L. KINLEY,
Appellant
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY;
ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER;
TRENTON ORTHOPEDIC GROUP
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civ. No. 3-10-cv-06468)
District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
____________________________________
Submitted for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 12, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN AND VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : June 2, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Kinley, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the District Court dismissing his
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because the appeal presents no substantial
question, we will summarily affirm.
Kinley has previously attempted to litigate his dispute over injuries he claims he
sustained as a result of alleged medical malpractice. In Kinley v. St. Francis Medical
Center, Civ. No. 3:08-cv-05496 (D.N.J. 2008), he brought a claim pursuant to the District
Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and sought damages under numerous
state law theories. Because complete diversity of citizenship did not exist between the
parties, the District Court dismissed his complaint. Kinley did not appeal.
In the instant action, Kinley again sought to litigate his dispute, this time invoking
the District Court’s federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. He claimed that the
Defendants violated his “constitutional right to due process” by dismissing his state
medical malpractice claim for failing to file an affidavit of merit, denying him a court
appointed attorney and an expert witness to perform a medical exam, and “keeping all the
materials that [he has] that prove [his] case off the records until this day.” Compl. 2, ECF
No. 1. The District Court dismissed his complaint pursuant to its authority under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions, Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d
523, 530 (3d Cir. 2003), and can affirm the District Court’s order on any ground
supported by the record. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir.
1999). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial question. See 3d
Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
2
Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) is proper if a complaint is frivolous or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. To state a claim, a complaint must raise
an allegation of sufficient factual matter which, if accepted as true, could “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Kinley’s filings do not
do so. He provides no support for his argument that the affidavit of merit requirement
has been applied unconstitutionally, noting only that he “feels” that that requirement
denies him his “constitutional right to due process.” Compl. 2. Accordingly, the District
Court was correct to dismiss the action. 1
We are satisfied that amendment of Kinley’s Complaint would have been futile,
especially in light of the dismissal of his earlier attempt to bring this suit. The District
Court therefore properly dismissed without leave to amend. See Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002).
As the appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the
judgment below. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
1
To the extent Kinley’s complaint constituted an attempt to appeal the District
Court’s decision in his prior case, we agree with the District Court that Kinley should
have filed an appeal from that decision instead.
3