Vamsidhar Vurimindi v. HSFLB Condominium Owners Assoc ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                          NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 13-3141
    ___________
    VAMSIDHAR REDDY VURIMINDI,
    Appellant
    v.
    HSFLB CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA;
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT
    ATTORNEY; GEORGE J. DILWORTH, JR.; ALLISON BOROWSKI; RAJANI
    PATTINSON; LAUREN WESTFIELD; KENDRA BRILL; NICHOLAS PALMER;
    MICHAEL BOROWSKI; LEO ADDIMANDO; JOHN DOE-1, AN UNKNOWN
    POLICE OFFICER(S) AND/OR DETECTIVE(S) FOR THE CITY OF
    PHILADELPHIA; JOHN DOE-2, AN UNKNOWN ATTORNEY(S) AND/OR POLICE
    OFFICER(S) AND OR DETECTIVE FOR THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; JOHN
    DOE-3, AN UNKNOWN ATTORNEY(S) AND/OR POLICE OFFICER(S) AND/OR
    DETECTIVE(S) FOR THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; JOHN DOE-4,
    AN UNKNOWN ATTORNEY(S) AND/OR POLICE OFFICER(S) AND/OR
    DETECTIVE(S) FOR THE COMMOMWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; JOHN DOE-
    5, AN UNKNOWN RESIDENT; STARBUCKS, INC.
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 13-cv-00039)
    District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    December 27, 2013
    Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: January 7, 2014)
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    Vamsidhar Vurimindi appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for an
    injunction. For the reasons below, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
    In January 2013, Vurimindi filed a civil rights complaint against Appellees
    alleging claims of bad faith, harassment, and official lawlessness. He sought to enjoin his
    criminal prosecution for harassment and stalking. The District Court denied his motion
    for a TRO, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, and dismissed his
    complaint without prejudice to his filing an amended complaint. Because the state court
    handling his criminal charges had found Vurimindi not competent to stand trial, the
    District Court placed the matter in suspense until Vurimindi was found competent.
    Vurimindi filed a notice of appeal.
    We have jurisdiction over the District Court’s denial of the injunction pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction
    for an abuse of discretion but review the District Court’s underlying legal conclusions de
    novo. Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 
    586 F.3d 263
    , 268 (3d Cir. 2009).
    The District Court concluded that it should abstain from interfering with
    Vurimindi’s criminal litigation in state court under the doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 
    401 U.S. 37
    (1971). The District Court did not err in doing so. The requirements which must
    2
    be met before a federal court may abstain are that there must be pending state
    proceedings which (1) are judicial in nature; (2) implicate important interests; and (3)
    afford an adequate opportunity to raise any constitutional issues. Matusow v. Trans–
    County Title Agency, LLC, 
    545 F.3d 241
    , 248 (3d Cir. 2008). Vurimindi’s criminal
    proceedings are judicial in nature and implicate the important interests of protecting the
    victims from Vurimindi’s alleged conduct. Vurimindi has not shown that he will not
    have an adequate opportunity to raise any constitutional issues during his proceedings.
    Because we agree that abstention was appropriate, we need not reach the District Court’s
    alternative reasons for denying Vurimindi’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
    For the above reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order. Vurimindi’s
    motions are denied.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-3141

Judges: Ambro, Shwartz, Scirica

Filed Date: 1/7/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024