Court Opinion

ID: 9958246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 17:00:44.666041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.155602
License: Public Domain

CLD-084                                            NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                  ___________

                                       No. 24-1067
                                       ___________

                           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. 2:23-cv-20928)
                      ____________________________________

                      Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
                                     March 7, 2024

              Before: KRAUSE, FREEMAN, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed April 8, 2024)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Palani Karupaiyan, a frequent litigant, filed suit in the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey, related to, inter alia, the towing of his Porsche Cayenne, in

which he had been living; the appointment of United States Supreme Court justices; and

what he characterizes as the attempted abduction of his children to the Republic of India.

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Karupaiyan would like us to exercise our mandamus authority to provide him with

the relief that he seeks in the District Court and more. Specifically, he asks that we order

the United States to amend the Constitution in several ways; change how Supreme Court

justices, federal circuit and district judges, and some New Jersey state court judges are

appointed (and invalidate the appointment of one justice); enact a universal family law;

and abolish the Electoral College. He further requests that we order the Republic of India

to release his United States citizen children. He also asks us to enter orders against New

Jersey to strike down New Jersey’s constitution and the New Jersey Supreme Court;

move New Jersey municipal judges onto the New Jersey Judiciary payroll; disallow some

New Jersey judicial appointments; deposit New Jersey traffic violations fines into the

New Jersey treasury; remove his traffic ticket to federal court; and institute a system that

allows for jury trials in any New Jersey trial, including municipal hearings on traffic

tickets. And he wants us to order Woodbridge Township, New Jersey, to pay him $295

per day for each day that he is without his Porsche.

       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.”

That authority does not extend to entertaining claims brought in the first instance, and

issuing writs against states and their officials, or the United States government, let alone

other countries like the Republic of India.

       Traditionally, we issue such a writ of mandamus only when a district court “has

made an error of jurisdictional dimension,” and we use it “to confine an inferior court to a
                                              2
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). But it is not clear if Karupaiyan asks us

to order the District Court or the District Judge to do anything. To the extent that he may

be requesting that we order the District Court to grant the relief that he sought there, we

conclude that mandamus relief is not appropriate. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79

(3d Cir. 1996), superseded in part on other grounds by 3d Cir. L.A.R. 24.1(c) (2011)

(explaining that a petitioner seeking the writ “must have no other adequate means to

obtain the desired relief, and must show that the right to issuance is clear and

indisputable”).

       For these reasons, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

                                              3