ALD-103 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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