2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-11-2013 

# V a msid h a r V ur imindi v . D a n Achek

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-2814

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" V a m sid h a r V

ur imind i v . D a n Ache k " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1149. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/1149NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 2814

___________ VAMSIDHAR REDDY VURIMINDI , Appellant

v. MR. DAN ACHEK; MRS. MA YA MAHA ELKANSA; ACHEK DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.; MR. ALEX LOPEZ; ALX GENERAL CONSTRUCT ION LLC; MR. HENRY I. LANGSAM; MR. BART SACKS; S & L INVESTMENTS; MRS. JUL IET WHELAN; MR. JAMES GABRIEL; MR. EDWARD DEVLIN; MRS. FRANCES BU RNS, Commissioner; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

____________________________________ On Appeal from t he United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 09

- cv - 05976 ) District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 5, 2013
Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and GREENBERG , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : March 11, 2013 )

___________ OPINION

___________ PER CURIAM2

Vamsidhar Reddy Vurimindi appeals from the final order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Penns ylvania dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
This litigation began when Vurimindi filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. After Vurimindi filed two amended p leadings in state court, the action was removed to the District Court in December 2009. The following month, Vurimindi filed a t hird amended complaint. After various motions to dismiss were filed, Vurimindi attempted to file a fourth amended complaint in the District Court.
T he District Court dismissed Vurimindi‟s third amended c omplaint, concluding that it did not comply with the pleading requirement s of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 1 However, the District Court granted Vurimindi lea ve to file an amended pleading , to be entitled: “First
Amended Federal Court Complaint.” In doing so, t he District Court informed Vurimindi
that he could not keep submit ting overly lengthy pleadings and recy cling prior
submissions. N or could he substitut e conclusory statements for fa cts. Vurimindi subsequently filed his First Amended Federal Court Complaint ( “Amended Federal Complaint”).

1 The District Court also determined that the third amended complain t did not state claims for civil rights violations as to the City of Philadelphia, did not adequately state any facts supportive of a conspiracy theory, and as to Achek and the other Defendants, did not include facts sufficient to describe the basis of any duty owed by any Defendant to Vurimindi.3

According to the Amended Federal Complaint , Vurimindi is the owner of a property located at 1782 Frankford Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

. S &L
Investments is the owner of a building located at 1780 Frankford Avenue, adjacent to
Vurimindi ‟s property. Vurimindi asserts that a building located at 1778 Frankford Avenue was demolished by ALX General Construction LLC (“ALX”) in September 2008
under the supervision of Achek Design & Construction Co. ( “ Achek”) as per plans submitted by Juliet Whelan

. Also that month, ALX began digging under the foundation of 1780 Frankford, causing that property to begin to collapse. Vurimindi claims that later
that month, after a wrecking company demolished the party wall between 1780 Frankford and 1782 Frankford, his property susta ined multiple structural damages . The Amended
Federal Complaint s eeks damages in excess of $600, 000.
The District Court granted Defend ants‟ motions to dismiss Vurimindi‟s Amended
Federal Complaint, determining that Vurimindi had not corrected the deficiencies that the
District Court identified in its prior order

. The District Court denied Vurmindi a further opportunity to amend his comp laint . Vurimindi appeals the District Court‟s order

. 2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review of the District Court‟s grant of a motion to dismiss is plenary. McGovern v. City of Phila. , 554 F.3d 114, 115 (3d Cir. 2009). As a pr eliminary matter, A ppellees argue that we should

2 We note that a separate appeal filed by Vurimindi, docketed at C.A. No. 11

- 2815 , is taken from this same order. However, because that case involves different defendants in a separate law suit, it has not been consolidated with this appeal and will be considered separately.4

dismiss this appeal due to the inadequacy of Vurimindi‟s opening brief. Specifically, they assert that Vurmindi does not discuss, much less challen ge, the District Court‟s primary basis for dismissal of his Amended Federal Complaint

-- failure to comply with
Rule 8. Instead, throughout his brief, Vurimindi attempts to argue the merits of his case. After reviewing Vurimindi‟s brief, we agree that the brief is inadequate

. While we are under an obligation to liberally construe the submissions of a pro se litigant, see Giles v. Kearney , 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009), issues not briefed on appeal

-- even by parties proceeding pro se

-- are deemed waived or abandoned. Kost v. Kozakiewicz , 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993); Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Vurimindi, who is an experienced pro se litigator , was aware of this requirement at the time he filed his opening brief. See Vurimindi v. Fuqua School of Business , 435 F. App‟x 129 , 131

- 32 (3d Cir. 2011).
However , e ven if Vurimindi had argued in his brief that the District Court erred in determining that his Amended Federal Complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 , we would nonetheless find the argument meritless. 3 Even taking into account Vurimindi ‟s status as a pro se litigant, we agree with the District Court that he failed to comply with the basic pleading requirements. His Amended Federal Complaint lacked “short and plain statement[s]” of ei ther the grounds for jurisdiction or of any “claim showing that

3 We review a district court‟s decision to dismiss claims under Rule 8 for an abuse of discretion. In re Westinghouse Sec. Litig. , 90 F.3d 696, 702 (3d Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).5

[he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)

. Furthermore, Vurimindi ‟s specific allegations were neither “„simple, concise, [nor] direct.‟” Westinghouse , 90 F. 3d at 702 (quoting Fed. R . Civ. P. 8(e)(1))

. Rather, despite the District Court‟s previous admonition, Vurimindi again set forth multiple conclusory or argumentative statements masqueraded as facts.
The District Court provided Vurimindi with an opportunity to comply with Rule 8 and gave him specific instructions as to what must be included in a proper complaint

. Vurimindi did not follow the District Court‟s directions

. Accordingly, granting him leave
to file a yet another amended comp laint would have been futile, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Amended Federal Complaint with prejudice. See, e.g. , Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp. , 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002); Westinghouse , 90 F.3d at 703

- 04. 4 F or these reasons, we will affirm the District Court‟s judgment. Achek ‟s motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix is granted.
Vurimindi ‟s motion to expedite the appeal is denied.

4 Because we affirm based on the failure to comply with Rule 8, we need not, and accordingly do not, address whether the District Court was also correct to dismiss the second amended complaint on the additional grounds offered in its opinion

.