Court Opinion

ID: 9385611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 17:00:27.575823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.803703
License: Public Domain

ALD-103                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 23-1303
                                      ___________

                      IN RE: PALANI KARUPAIYAN; R.P.; P.P.
                                               Petitioners
                      ____________________________________

                      On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
                United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
                          (Related to Civ. No. 2-22-cv-01349)
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                   March 9, 2023
            Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed April 7, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Palani Karupaiyan petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1651. For the reasons that follow, we will deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition.

       In 2022, Karupaiyan filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of New

Jersey against Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), TCS’s CEO Rajesh Gopinathan, Tata

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Group of Companies, and “John does ex CEOs of TCS.” In an order entered January 27,

2023, the District Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), for failure to state a claim for relief. The District Court noted

that Karupaiyan had filed “numerous, substantially similar complaints” against various

defendants which were also dismissed on the same basis and admonished him that “any

future abuse of legal process might trigger sanctions.” ECF No. 5 at 5-6. Karupaiyan

filed a notice of appeal. See C.A. No. 23-1255. He subsequently filed this mandamus

petition “from the order” dismissing his complaint. 1 Karupaiyan appears to seek the

same relief sought against the defendants in his complaint.

       Mandamus provides a “drastic remedy that a court should grant only in

extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of

power.” Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Edgar, 74 F.3d 456, 461 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted). To justify the Court’s use of this extraordinary

remedy, Karupaiyan must show a clear and indisputable right to the writ and that he has

no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired. Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975

1
  Karupaiyan also seeks mandamus relief on behalf of his two minor children, R.P. and
P.P., who are both listed as petitioners. After the Clerk notified him that, as a non-
attorney, he cannot represent the interests of his minor children, see Osei-Afriyie by
Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 883 (3d Cir. 1991), Karupaiyan filed a
motion for appointment of counsel or, in the alternative, to appoint him as next friend or
guardian ad litem for his minor children. We have repeatedly denied Karupaiyan’s
motions for such relief in other matters, see C.A. Nos. 21-2560 & 21-3339, and we deny
this motion, too, because he has not provided any basis for granting such relief.
Accordingly, we will dismiss the request for mandamus relief on R.P. and P.P.’s behalf.
                                             2
F.2d 81, 89 (3d Cir. 1992). He has failed to make this requisite showing. To the extent

that Karupaiyan seeks an order granting the relief sought in his complaint, he is

essentially trying to circumvent the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint.

Mandamus relief is unavailable because he may challenge the District Court’s dismissal

order through the normal appeal process. See In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 524 (3d Cir.

2001) (noting that, “[g]iven its drastic nature, a writ of mandamus should not be issued

where relief may be obtained through an ordinary appeal”) (citation omitted).

       For the foregoing reasons, we will deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

a writ of mandamus.

                                             3