V.R. Vurimindi v. A. Borowski

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Vamsidhar R. Vurimindi, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 668 C.D. 2023
: SUBMITTED: August 9, 2024
Allison Borowski, Rajani Watson a/k/a :
Rajani Pattinson, Philadelphia District :
Attorney, United States Attorney’s :
Office for the Eastern District of :
Pennsylvania, United States Attorney’s :
Office for the District of Maryland, :
United States Attorney’s Office for the :
Southern District of New York, United :
States Attorney’s Office for the Western :
District of Texas, Office of the Attorney :
General for Pennsylvania, Office of the :
Attorney General for New York, and :
Office of the Attorney General for :
Maryland :
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM FILED: September 10, 2024
Appellant, Vamsidhar R. Vurimindi, appeals pro se from the order of
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dismissing his complaint as
frivolous pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j)(1), Pa.R.Civ.P.
240(j)(1).1 We affirm.
1
Rule 240(j)(1) provides:
If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or
proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for
(Footnote continued on next page…)
In 2014, Vurimindi was convicted of two counts of stalking and one
count of disorderly conduct, for which he was sentenced to a period of incarceration
followed by probation. See Commonwealth v. Vurimindi, 200 A.3d 1031, 1034 (Pa.
Super. 2018); see also Vurimindi v. O’Connor (Pa. Super., No. 2915 EDA 2022,
filed Aug. 29, 2023). He subsequently filed numerous motions, appeals, and
correspondence with the trial court, including multiple petitions – both counseled
and pro se – pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).2
At issue here, in December 2022, Vurimindi filed a petition to proceed
in forma pauperis and a lengthy complaint against the two victims from his criminal
case and various legal offices. From what we can discern, Vurimindi’s complaint
alleges prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, the existence of after-discovered
evidence, and the denial of his constitutional and appellate rights. The crux of the
complaint seeks to set aside a “stay away” or protective order issued in the
underlying criminal matter so as to allow Vurimindi to upload video evidence which
will purportedly establish his innocence.
By order issued January 27, 2023, the trial court sua sponte dismissed
Vurimindi’s complaint pursuant to Rule 240(j)(1), noting that the complaint failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.3 As the trial court subsequently
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court prior to acting upon
the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if the
allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action,
proceeding or appeal is frivolous.
Pa.R.Civ.P. 240(j)(1).
2
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
3
A frivolous action is one that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Pa.R.Civ.P.
240(j)(1), Note (citation omitted). An action is frivolous under Rule 240(j)(1) if, on its face, it
does not set forth a valid cause of action. Keller v. Kinsley, 609 A.2d 567, 568 (Pa. Super. 1992).
2
explained, Vurimindi’s complaint is frivolous because it is a collateral attack on the
legality of his conviction, which may be raised only through a PCRA petition. Trial
Ct. Op., July 12, 2023, at 3-4. Vurimindi then appealed to the Superior Court, which
transferred the matter to this Court.
Upon review of the record, Vurimindi’s arguments, and the law, we
conclude that the trial court ably addressed and resolved the issues raised by
Vurimindi. Accordingly, we affirm based on the well-reasoned opinion of the
Honorable Daniel J. Anders in Vamsidhar R. Vurimindi v. Allison Borowski (C.C.P.
Philadelphia, No. 230100026, filed July 12, 2023) (appended hereto).
3
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Vamsidhar R. Vurimindi, :
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 668 C.D. 2023
:
Allison Borowski, Rajani Watson a/k/a :
Rajani Pattinson, Philadelphia District :
Attorney, United States Attorney’s :
Office for the Eastern District of :
Pennsylvania, United States Attorney’s :
Office for the District of Maryland, :
United States Attorney’s Office for the :
Southern District of New York, United :
States Attorney’s Office for the Western :
District of Texas, Office of the Attorney :
General for Pennsylvania, Office of the :
Attorney General for New York, and :
Office of the Attorney General for :
Maryland :
PER CURIAM ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2024, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in the above-captioned matter is
AFFIRMED.