George S. Vasilopoulos v. Krovatin Klingman LLC

CLD-279 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
NO. 09-1312
___________
GEORGE S. VASILOPOULOS,
Appellant
v.
KROVATIN KLINGMAN LLC; ANNA G. COMINSKY
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civ. No. 09-cv-00073)
District Judge: Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 6, 2009
Before: RENDELL, HARDIMAN AND ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 14, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
George Vasilopoulos appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing his
complaint. Because we conclude that this appeal lacks arguable merit, we will dismiss it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

-- 1 of 3 --

Vasilopoulos also filed two separate amended complaints on January 12, 2009 and1
January 14, 2009, respectively.
2
Vasilopoulos filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint1
against Krovatin Klingman, LLC and Anna Cominsky, an attorney with that law firm
(“appellees”). He alleges that appellees placed “a notice in the complaint of a different
accusation,” stating that Vasilopoulos was “obsess[ed] with” certain children and that he
is gay. Vasilopoulos alleges that appellees’ actions led to his prosecution for child abuse.
The sole relief he seeks is monetary damages in the amount of $5,000,000.
The District Court granted Vasilopoulos leave to proceed in forma pauperis, then
dismissed his complaint and his first amended complaint without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Reading the complaints broadly in accordance with Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), the District Court determined that Vasilopoulos
intended to bring a civil action for slander and defamation. The District Court concluded
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, given that Vasilopoulos alleged no violation of a
federal statute, and there was no diversity of citizenship. The District Court also
reviewed Vasilopoulos’ second amended complaint to determine whether he could state a
claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but concluded that Vasilopoulos had failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. The District Court later denied Vasilopoulos’
motion for reconsideration.
Vasilopoulos appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

-- 2 of 3 --

Vasilopoulos did not file an amended notice of appeal and we thus review only the2
order that dismissed his complaints.
3
We granted Vasilopoulos in forma pauperis status, and we now review this appeal to
determine whether it should be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appeal is2
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis in either law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
We agree that the initial complaint and the first amended complaint fail to show a
basis for subject matter jurisdiction. We also agree that the second amended complaint
fails to state a claim for relief under § 1983. To establish a cause of action under section
1983, a litigant must show “the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a
person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Nothing
in the second amended complaint would allow an inference that appellees acted under
color of state law. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Our independent
review reveals that there is no arguable basis to challenge the District Court’s ruling on
appeal. Accordingly, this appeal will be dismissed.

-- 3 of 3 --