Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-13-03141/USCOURTS-ca3-13-03141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 DOE5, 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)

Case: 13-3141 Document: 003111499743 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
2

___________

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 

Case: 13-3141 Document: 003111499743 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
3

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.

Case: 13-3141 Document: 003111499743 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2014