CLD-059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 23-3044

___________

IN RE: PALANI KARUPAIYAN,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 3:23-cv-02005)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 18, 2024

Before: KRAUSE, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 14, 2024)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

In the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Palani 

Karupaiyan, a frequent litigant, sought to file suit in forma pauperis (“IFP”) against 

Wipro Limited (“Wipro”) and officials at that company (among others). The District 

Court denied the IFP application without prejudice as inconsistent and incomplete. At 

that time, the District Court screened Karupaiyan’s complaint and dismissed it, in part 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

with prejudice and in part without, with leave to amend if the District Court reopened the 

matter on Karupaiyan’s submission of the filing fee or a proper and complete IFP 

application. In the District Court, Karupaiyan filed a notice of appeal, which opened 

C.A. No. 23-2424. He also filed a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition in this 

Court.

In his petition, which he has twice amended, Karupaiyan seeks several orders

against Wipro and its associated entities (including orders requiring the companies to pay 

him 25 million dollars, requiring Wipro to transfer ownership of the companies to him, 

and barring Wipro from obtaining visas for some of its employees). He complains of 

Wipro’s outsourcing and other employment actions in ways that overlap somewhat with 

the allegations that he raised in his District Court complaint. 

Upon review, we will deny the petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, we have the 

authority to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our jurisdiction] and 

agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Those writs include the drastic remedies 

of writs of mandamus and prohibition in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. 

Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). Traditionally, we issue such writs only 

when a district court “has made an error of ‘jurisdictional’ dimension,” and we use them 

“to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to

compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” See United States v. 

Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 893 (3d Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Karupaiyan, who objects to the actions of Wipro and other private parties and 
3

requests orders directed to them, not the District Court or District Judge, does not present 

a situation in which such a writ is appropriate. 

While our jurisdiction to issue the writs “lies in cases in which potential appellate 

jurisdiction exists,” In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 779 (3d Cir. 2000), we do not have 

potential jurisdiction, appellate or otherwise, over the claims against Wipro (and its 

associated entities) presented for our consideration in the first instance. See O’Hanlon v. 

Uber Techs., Inc., 990 F.3d 757, 763 n.3 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing the established principle 

that the Court is “a court of review, not of first view”). And, to the extent that 

Karupaiyan seeks, in his petition, review of the District Court’s ruling, that ruling is not 

within “a carefully circumscribed and discrete category of district court orders” that we 

can review in mandamus or prohibition. Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 76–77 (3d Cir. 

1996), superseded in part by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (2011); see also United States v. 

Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 593-94 (3d Cir. 1992) (noting that the requirements are the same 

for obtaining either writ). Mandamus or prohibition may not be used as a substitute for 

appeal. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 212 (3d Cir. 2006).

For these reasons, we will deny Karupaiyan’s petition.