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...)
2

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). 
3

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). 
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 O R D E R

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.