McKnight v. Hartford Insurance

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-22-2005
McKnight v. Hartford Ins Co
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-2772
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"McKnight v. Hartford Ins Co" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 54.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/54
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 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2772
LEROY McKNIGHT,
Appellant
v.
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY;
MARA LEYZIN; ANNA DUBYANSKITE; NAZARETH HOSPITAL;
ALGONO GARDEN APARTMENTS; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA;
COLONIAL POINT APARTMENTS; HARVEY FORMAN;
HERBERT FRANK; CRAIG FRANKIL; ABRAHAM HORN;
INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS; JEFFERSON HOSPITAL;
ALAN MERMELSTEIN; JERRY MURPHY;
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-00492
(Honorable Robert F. Kelly)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 14, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FISHER and ALDISERT Circuit Judges
(Filed December 22, 2005 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Leroy McKnight commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint which he
amended on March 11, 2005, to name a total of sixteen defendants, including doctors,
hospitals, insurance companies, the City of Philadelphia, and an apartment complex in
which he resided. McKnight leveled numerous allegations, but his claims essentially
revolved around an untreated mold condition in his apartment, the allegedly negligent
treatment he received for a Hepatitis C infection, and the allegedly negligent performance
of a cardiac catheterization– and a sense that each of these events are connected and part
of an ongoing wrong. McKnight seemed to request compensatory damages, see Amended
Complaint at 1, and he further asked the District Court “to vacate” an earlier judgment
entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in favor of certain of the
named defendants.
By Order entered May 11, 2005, the District Court granted the motions of several
defendants and dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court observed that while McKnight labeled his action as a “civil rights claim,” he
did not allege any state action on the part of any defendant or any conduct in violation of
his constitutional or federal statutory rights. In addition, the District Court noted an
absence of a complete diversity of citizenship between McKnight and the defendants as
required for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. McKnight timely filed this appeal.
2
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is
plenary over a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In re Kaiser Group Intern.
Inc., 399 F.3d 558, 561 (3d Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record and the parties’ contentions, we will affirm for
the reasons accurately stated by the District Court. McKnight’s allegations as set forth in
his amended complaint made it clear that the District Court had neither federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nor jurisdiction based upon a diversity of
citizenship.
With regard to diversity jurisdiction, McKnight seems to argue that he should have
been permitted to proceed with his cause of action against certain defendants individually,
noting, for example, that he has a diverse citizenship from defendant Hartford Insurance
Company. See Appellant’s Br. at 1, 3, 5. It is settled law, however, that jurisdiction
under § 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship– “that is that no plaintiff can have
the same state citizenship as any of the defendants.” Grand Union Supermarkets of the
Virgin Islands, Inc. v. H.E. Lockhart Mgmt., 316 F.3d 408, 410 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations
omitted). McKnight does not dispute that complete diversity is absent here– indeed, the
majority of the sixteen named defendants are citizens of Pennsylvania, like McKnight.
Finally, to the extent that McKnight asked the District Court to vacate the adverse
judgment entered by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, his suit is barred
by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
3
125 S. Ct. 1517 (2005); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
In short, upon finding that it lacked a jurisdictional foundation from which it could
reach the subject matter of McKnight’s claims, the District Court properly dismissed the
amended complaint. Consequently, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Appellant’s motion to supplement the record is granted.
4