Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    Chandan Vora v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3rd Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a case brought by Dr. Chandan S. Vora against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The District Court had dismissed Vora's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the District Court properly abstained from involvement in Vora's ongoing state criminal proceeding under the Younger abstention doctrine. The Third Circuit also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vora's motions for reconsideration, as she failed to demonstrate any grounds to alter or amend the judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Chandan Vora v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3rd Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    53 views4 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a case brought by Dr. Chandan S. Vora against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The District Court had dismissed Vora's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the District Court properly abstained from involvement in Vora's ongoing state criminal proceeding under the Younger abstention doctrine. The Third Circuit also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vora's motions for reconsideration, as she failed to demonstrate any grounds to alter or amend the judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-06-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-1775

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a case brought by Dr. Chandan S. Vora against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The District Court had dismissed Vora's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the District Court properly abstained from involvement in Vora's ongoing state criminal proceeding under the Younger abstention doctrine. The Third Circuit also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vora's motions for reconsideration, as she failed to demonstrate any grounds to alter or amend the judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    53 views4 pages

    Chandan Vora v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3rd Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit regarding a case brought by Dr. Chandan S. Vora against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The District Court had dismissed Vora's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that the District Court properly abstained from involvement in Vora's ongoing state criminal proceeding under the Younger abstention doctrine. The Third Circuit also found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vora's motions for reconsideration, as she failed to demonstrate any grounds to alter or amend the judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    BLD-271

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 13-1775
    ___________
    DR. CHANDAN S. VORA,
    Appellant
    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 3-12-cv-00159)
    District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
    ____________________________________
    Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to
    Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
    June 6, 2013

    Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges


    (Opinion filed: June 14, 2013)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________
    PER CURIAM

    Chandan S. Vora, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Courts orders
    dismissing her complaint and denying her motions for reconsideration. For the reasons
    that follow, we will summarily affirm.
    I.
    In August 2012, Vora filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a proposed
    complaint alleging that she was charged with, and being prosecuted for, criminal
    trespass as part of a larger scheme of racial discrimination perpetrated by the police and
    public officials in the City of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. (Dkt. No. 6.) On September 4,
    2012, the District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction because it sought
    to attack a pending state criminal matter and for failure to state a claim upon which
    relief could be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (Dkt. No. 5, p. 3.) Her
    motions for release, an injunction, and to vacate were denied as moot. (Id.) Vora then
    filed, on September 12, 2012, a motion for preliminary injunction, followed by motions
    to extend time, supplement, and stay. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 10-12, 14.) The District Court
    construed all of those motions as requesting reconsideration and denied them on February
    19, 2013. Vora filed a notice of appeal on March 18, 2013.
    II.
    Vora appeals from the District Courts order dismissing her complaint and its
    order denying reconsideration. The District Court dismissed Voras complaint on
    September 4, 2012. She then filed a motion for reconsideration within the requisite
    2

    twenty-eight day time period, thereby tolling the time for filing an appeal. See Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). The District Court denied reconsideration
    on February 19, 2013, and Vora timely appealed. Therefore, we have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. 1291 to review both orders of the District Court.
    We conclude that the District Court correctly dismissed Voras complaint. Vora
    was attacking an ongoing state criminal proceeding. Generally, federal courts are
    required to abstain from involvement in such proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401
    U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). For abstention to be proper, the state proceedings must be judicial
    in nature, implicate important state interests, and afford an adequate opportunity to raise
    federal claims. Kendall v. Russell, 572 F.3d 126, 131 (3d Cir. 2009). Those
    requirements are met in this case. The criminal proceedings against Vora are ongoing,
    implicate Pennsylvanias important interest in bringing to justice those who violate its
    criminal laws, and she will have an opportunity to raise federal claims in defending
    against the charges. Nor has Vora 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.
    We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    Voras motions for reconsideration. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d
    Cir. 2010). A motion for reconsideration is a limited vehicle used to correct manifest
    3

    errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Maxs Seafood Caf ex
    rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). A
    judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows one of
    three grounds: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence;
    or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Id. Vora did
    not identify any of these factors in her motions, wherein she merely rehashed arguments
    that were presented in her previous filings.
    III.
    There being no substantial question presented on appeal, we will summarily affirm
    the judgment of the District Court. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

    You might also like