Opinion
23-1303
04-07-2023
IN RE: PALANI KARUPAIYAN; R.P.; P.P. Petitioners
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. March 9, 2023
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)
Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges
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 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. Karupaiyan appears to seek the same relief sought against the defendants in his complaint.
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 nonattorney, 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.
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 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.
[*] This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.