A federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina claims that a defense contractor with top secret clearance was falsely labeled as violent and mentally unstable in official law enforcement records—a designation he says has endangered his career, safety, and constitutional rights. The complaint was filed by Hari Krishna Kunduru on March 5, 2026 against the City of Raleigh, the Raleigh Police Department, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, the North Carolina Information Sharing and Analysis Center (NCISAAC), Plaza Condominiums Homeowners Association (HOA), and unnamed state and federal agents.
According to the complaint, Kunduru alleges that on October 24, 2024, a Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) record was created classifying him as “Mental Commitment; Violent.” He states that no involuntary commitment ever occurred—although a custody order was signed by a magistrate at the request of his family after they were denied access to visit him at his residence. Kunduru asserts that he voluntarily underwent psychiatric evaluation the next day and was found mentally sound by a physician. Despite this outcome, he reports that the CAD record remains accessible in law enforcement systems.
Kunduru outlines several instances which he believes show a pattern of retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. He claims adverse actions followed soon after each attempt to report concerns about stalking or harassment to authorities or through official channels at work. Among these actions are alleged workplace retaliation—including efforts by colleagues to terminate his employment after self-reporting security concerns—and being denied housing in his building following communications between building management and third parties referencing unspecified “concerns.”
The lawsuit details how Kunduru’s professional background includes nine years in software development and cybersecurity for defense agencies. He received a Top Secret Level 5 security clearance from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) in June 2024 after an extensive background check. Kunduru maintains that these credentials establish his credibility against any suggestion of mental instability.
In addition to city officials and police officers, Kunduru names Plaza HOA as a defendant for allegedly acting under color of state law by facilitating surveillance activities within the condominium building where he lived. He cites incidents such as unauthorized maintenance work outside his unit shortly after contacting federal authorities—work which required HOA approval—and statements from building security referencing warrants before any legal process had begun.
The complaint also describes multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by Kunduru to federal agencies including the FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), National Security Agency (NSA), Air Force Inspector General, DOJ Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), DHS Privacy Office, NCISAAC, among others. Many responses were so-called Glomar denials—refusals to confirm or deny existence of records—which Kunduru interprets as evidence he is subject to classified intelligence community records or watchlist placement.
Kunduru further alleges that defamation by Plaza HOA’s community manager led directly to denial of alternative housing within his building after being issued an eviction notice while complaints about electromagnetic field emissions went unresolved. He also describes incidents involving fraudulent complaints made under his name—such as pest control requests he did not file—and scam phone calls impersonating sheriff’s deputies with knowledge of personal financial information.
Law enforcement officers across several jurisdictions are quoted in the filing acknowledging terms like “targeted,” “watchlist,” or “something federal” when discussing Kunduru’s situation. One officer reportedly told him: “What did you do to get targeted?” These acknowledgments are presented as evidence that local authorities were aware of broader coordination but did not officially document it.
The complaint references corroboration from another cleared nuclear professional who independently documented similar patterns in Wake County during 2024. It also includes logs maintained by Kunduru detailing surveillance vehicles’ license plates and unusual electromagnetic readings inside his former residence—readings which subsided after moving out but other forms of alleged harassment continued.
Legally, Kunduru brings claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) for civil rights violations; Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents for constitutional torts; defamation; procedural due process violations; First Amendment retaliation; Fourth Amendment search violations; Fifth Amendment liberty interest deprivations; Monell municipal liability; joint action doctrine regarding private actors; watchlist placement without due process per Elhady v. Kable; FOIA obstruction; identity fraud; negligent infliction of emotional distress; intentional infliction of emotional distress; breach of contract related to tenancy issues.
He seeks damages for harm inflicted—including lost income opportunities—and declaratory relief correcting government records describing him as violent or mentally ill. Additionally, he asks for injunctive relief preventing further retaliation or dissemination of disputed information through law enforcement databases or fusion centers.
Attorneys’ names are not listed in this portion of the filing provided. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 5:26-cv-00136-D.
Source: 526cv00136_Kunduru_v_City_of_Raleigh_Complaint_Eastern_District_North_Carolina.pdf
