CLD-059 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
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
2
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.
3