Palani Karupaiyan v.

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 25-2981 ___________

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

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. on November 25, 2025

Before: BIBAS, PHIPPS, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 8, 2025) ____________________________________ ___________

OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

Palani Karupaiyan, a frequent pro se litigant, filed suit against several defendants

relating to the towing of his car and numerous other matters. While that suit was pend-

ing, he filed a mandamus petition asking us “to provide him with the relief that he seeks

in the District Court and more.” In re Karupaiyan, No. 24-1067, 2024 WL 1505491, at

*1 (3d Cir. Apr. 8, 2024) (per curiam). We denied the petition because it did

not satisfy the standard for mandamus relief. See id.

At issue here is another mandamus petition that Karupaiyan filed pro se1 in this

same matter, again while it was still pending in the District Court. (That court appears to

have since resolved the matter.) This petition is substantively identical to Karupaiyan’s

previous petition, and we deny it for the same reasons.

We note that this petition is now at least the ninth similar and similarly frivolous

mandamus petition that Karupaiyan has filed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with this Court.

See In re Karupaiyan, No. 24-1608, 2024 WL 2843021, at *1 (3d Cir. June 5, 2024) (per

curiam) (collecting cases). We previously warned him that further abuse of the IFP

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Karupaiyan also named as petitioners his minor children but, as we have advised him at least 11 times, he cannot represent them pro se. See Karupaiyan v. Shalimar Grp. of Res- taurants, No. 23-1788, 2024 WL 3811621, at *1 n.1 (3d Cir. Aug. 14, 2024) (per curiam) (applying Osei-Afriye v. Med. Coll. of. Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882 (3d Cir. 1991)). 2 privilege could result in sanctions, including restrictions on his ability to proceed IFP in

the future. See id. We will not consider imposing sanctions now because Karupaiyan

refrained from filing similar mandamus petitions for well over a year after our previous

warning. But now that he has filed another one, we again warn him that further frivolous,

repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings could result in sanctions, including monetary pen-

alties, restrictions on his ability to proceed IFP, and other restrictions on his ability to file

documents with this Court.