2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-2-2011

Steven Kinley v. NJ Superior Court

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1693

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Steven Kinley v. NJ Superior Court" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 1153.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/1153
ALD-185 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
2

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.
3

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

 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.

3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.