2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-29-2011

Commonwealth of PA v. Chandan Vora

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2184

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Commonwealth of PA v. Chandan Vora" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 625.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/625
ALD-268 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2184

___________

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DR. CHANDAN S. VORA,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 11-cv-00063)

District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 18, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 29, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Dr. Chandan S. Vora appeals pro se from the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal 

of her “petition for removal.” For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the 

District Court’s judgment.
2

In the “petition for removal,” Dr. Vora alleged that officials in the City of 

Johnstown discriminated against her and violated her civil rights. The attached exhibits 

suggest that Dr. Vora’s allegations stem from a criminal complaint, issued by the 

Johnstown Police Department in February 2011, charging her with risking a catastrophe 

after she allegedly started a fire inside her house. The District Court granted Dr. Vora’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis, but concluded that her “allegations . . . seek to 

attack state court proceedings over which this court lacks jurisdiction and otherwise fail

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 

(1971) (holding that federal courts will not intervene in ongoing state criminal 

prosecution absent exceptional circumstances). Accordingly, the District Court dismissed 

the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Dr. Vora filed a motion for 

reconsideration, which the District Court denied. Dr. Vora appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of 

the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of Dr. Vora’s “petition for removal” is plenary. 

Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). “We [also] exercise plenary 

review over the legal determinations of whether the requirements for Younger abstention 

have been met and, if so, we review the district court’s decision to abstain for abuse of 

discretion.” FOCUS v. Allegheny Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 843 (3d 

Cir. 1996). We may take summary action when an appeal presents no substantial 

question, see 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. IOP 10.6., and may affirm on any ground 
3

supported by the record. Brown v. Pa. Dep’t of Health Emergency Med. Servs., 318 F.3d 

473, 475 n.1 (3d Cir. 2003).

Upon de novo review of the record and careful consideration of Dr. Vora’s 

submissions in this Court, we conclude that there is no substantial question presented on 

appeal and that summary action is warranted. See LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. In 

Younger, the Supreme Court recognized that the “longstanding public policy against 

federal court interference with state court proceedings” generally requires federal courts 

to abstain from involvement in state criminal proceedings. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43–44. 

“[T]he Younger doctrine allows a district court to abstain, but that discretion can properly 

be exercised only when (1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; 

(2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings 

afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.” Kendall v. Russell, 572 F.3d 126, 

131 (3d Cir. 2009). 

These requirements are met here. The criminal proceedings against Dr. Vora are 

ongoing, those proceedings implicate Pennsylvania’s important interest in bringing to 

justice those who violate its criminal laws, and Dr. Vora will have an opportunity to raise 

federal claims in defending against the charges. Dr. Vora has not demonstrated “bad 

faith, harassment or some other extraordinary circumstance, which might make abstention 

inappropriate.” Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the 

District Court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the ongoing state 
4

court criminal proceedings. To the extent that Dr. Vora seeks to appeal the denial of her 

motion for reconsideration, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its 

discretion. Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 673 

(3d Cir. 1999) (abuse of discretion standard of review). Finally, we note that granting Dr. 

Vora leave to amend the complaint in the instant case would have been futile. See

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented by 

this appeal. See I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment.