Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vurimindi v. HSFLB Condominium Owners Association

United States District Court, Third Circuit

June 20, 2013




Ludwig, J. June 20, 2013 On January 4, 2013, plaintiff Vamsidhar Vurimindi, pro se, commenced this action. It purports to be a civil rights action, and jurisdiction is federal question. According to the complaint, as a result of the actions of numerous defendants[1], plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated, was issued a restraining order prohibiting him from entering his own condominium, and was criminally charged with harassment and stalking. He requests injunctive relief and economic recovery.[2]


Plaintiff, a native of India and a practicing Hindu, is the owner of Unit # 607 at the Hoop Skirt Factory Loft Building, a condominium complex in Philadelphia. Complaint, ¶¶ 6-7. Beginning in 2009, plaintiff’s relations with his neighbors and local merchants became strained.[3] Id., ¶¶ 112-369. In late summer 2010, defendant Allison Borowski filed a private criminal complaint against plaintiff, which resulted in an indictment for stalking and harassment and the issuance of a restraining order against plaintiff in a criminal action docketed at CR-10-09-15-9559. Id., ¶¶ 310-385. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and the Commonwealth are alleged to have been complicit in approving the private complaint without properly investigating the claims before lodging charges against plaintiff. Id., ¶¶ 431-478.

Plaintiff, in turn, filed a civil action against his neighbors in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas styled Vurimindi v. Borowski, C.P. Phila., No. 1101-02212. Id., ¶¶ 415, 497. In retaliation, plaintiff’s neighbors, assisted by the Philadelphia Police and the District Attorney’s Office, spied on and harassed plaintiff, and filed further complaints against him. Id., ¶¶415-430. Strained relations between plaintiff and his neighbors continued, resulting in the filing of criminal charges against plaintiff in Municipal Court at MC-51-CR-9000095-2011, and the issuance of a mutual “stay-away” order in that case on May 20, 2011. Id., ¶¶469-560.

In December 2011, a hearing was held in the Municipal Court matter. Id., ¶¶ 561-587. In the course of the proceedings, the Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney proposed a plea bargain that included plaintiff’s withdrawal of his civil claims against his neighbors and the Commonwealth’s withdrawal of charges against plaintiff. Id., ¶¶ 588, 746. The bargain was later modified to require plaintiff to undergo a psychological evaluation. Id., ¶¶ 590, 738-740. Plaintiff declined the offer. Id., ¶¶ 591, 747. The mutual “stay-away” order was rescinded and a restraining order issued against plaintiff only. Id., ¶¶ 595, 597. Strained relations continued. Id., ¶¶ 599-618. On February 4, 2012, plaintiff was arrested for violating the restraining order and for disorderly conduct. Id., ¶ 619. Further criminal charges were filed against him at MC-51-CR-0005022-2012. Id., ¶ 756

On February 8, 2012, following a court ordered psychological examination, plaintiff was found incompetent to stand trial in the Municipal Court case. Id., ¶¶ 624, 751. On February 10, 2012, following a hearing, plaintiff was detained and required to undergo mental health treatment in prison. Id., ¶¶ 634, 752-755. Following a hearing on March 14, 2013, he was released, but required to stay with his sister in Virginia Beach and not return to his HSFLB condominium. Id., ¶¶ 641, 758-763. Plaintiff later requested permission to return to his condominium to begin a new job that would permit him to work at home. Id., ¶¶ 765-66. The request was denied, and though plaintiff was permitted to return to Pennsylvania, he was ordered to remain two blocks from HSFLB. Id., ¶¶ 647, 767.

In April, 2012, plaintiff agreed to move out of HSFLB in exchange for the withdrawal of criminal charges against him.[4] Id., ¶¶ 650-51, 769-772.

In May, 2012, plaintiff filed preliminary objections to the preliminary objections filed by defendants in Vurimindi v. Borowski. Id., ¶¶ 654-55, 773. Based on the preliminary objections[5], and other allegations made by plaintiff’s neighbors, in July, 2012, the District Attorney’s Office filed further criminal charges against plaintiff at CP-51-CR-0008022-1012. Id., ¶¶ 774-783. In the course of those proceedings, plaintiff has undergone three psychological evaluations and has been found incompetent to stand trial.

The complaint includes the following claims:

• Counts I, II and III - civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the state actors, including retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights, violation of First Amendment rights, and denial of equal protection;
• Counts IV, V, VI and VII - civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer Dilworth, the John Does officers and the City, including unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, and excessive force;
• Count VIII - a Monell claim against the City;
• Counts IX-XII - supplemental state law claims against Officer Dilworth and the John Doe officers, including battery, false arrest, concert ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.