Steven Paul Fleming v. United States of America Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

BLD-326 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3116
___________
STEVEN PAUL FLEMING,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; MICHAEL A. BERRY, MD
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 08-cv-05913)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 24, 2009
Before: MCKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed October 9, 2009 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Steven Paul Fleming, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s
dismissal of his complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the

-- 1 of 3 --

2
judgment of the District Court.
Fleming initiated the instant action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 8, 2008. In his complaint, he alleged that
he was a pilot who was misdiagnosed by the Veterans Administration Medical Center as
having paranoid schizophrenia and, as a result, was prevented from flying. He claimed
that in 2006, he finally found a doctor who determined that he was not schizophrenic and
never was, but that the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) still refused to provide
him with a medical certification. The FAA moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and lack of personal jurisdiction over
Dr. Michael Berry, Manager, Medical Specialties Division.
In an order dated June 23, 2009, the District Court granted Appellees’ motion to
dismiss. As the Court explained, the Aviation Act provides that the courts of appeals
have “exclusive jurisdiction to affirm, amend, modify, or set aside” orders of the FAA.
See 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a), (c). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a), which establishes the
procedures for an appeal from an order issued by the Administrator of the FAA with
respect to aviation duties, any such appeal must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia or in the court of appeals for the circuit in which the
person resides or has his principal place of business within 60 days of the date of the
order. As numerous courts have held, when the resolution of a plaintiff’s claims in
federal court requires an examination of the underlying FAA proceedings, the district

-- 2 of 3 --

3
courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over any such claims. See Meritt v. Shuttle, Inc.,
187 F.3d 263, 270-71 (2d Cir. 1999); Tur v. Federal Aviation Admin., 104 F.3d 290, 292
(9th Cir. 1997); Green v. Brantley, 981 F.2d 514, 521 (11th Cir. 1993). Because the
Aviation Act deprived the District Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Fleming’s
claims against the FAA, the District Court properly dismissed those claims. See id. With
respect to Dr. Berry, the District Court held that Fleming failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). As Fleming failed to allege
any wrongdoing by Dr. Berry personally, the District Court properly dismissed Fleming’s
complaint with respect to him. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)) (“complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face’”).
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because this
appeal presents no “substantial question,” we will summarily affirm the judgment of the
District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.

-- 3 of 3 --