OPINION OF THE COURT

Casey Lee Hoey, a pro se prisoner, filed a mandamus petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 25, 2008, seeking an order directing the Pennsylvania state courts to dismiss the criminal charges against him and release him from prison. The District Court determined that Hoey was not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus and denied his petition, and Hoey appealed. We will summarily affirm. 1

Hoey pled guilty to the charge of first-degree murder in Washington County, Pennsylvania, on March 26, 2003. He did not file a direct appeal. He later filed several petitions for post-conviction relief, which the PCRA court dismissed as untimely. Hoey contends that Pennsylvania’s criminal code is invalid, and, therefore, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution. He also contends that the one-year filing deadline contained in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9451, et. seq. unlawfully deprives him of any state court review of the merits of his claims.

*961 Under the All Writs Act, federal courts may “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As a general matter, federal courts cannot use that power to control or interfere with state court litigation. In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2001). Hoey has neither demonstrated that issuance of a writ of mandamus would be in aid of our jurisdiction, nor shown extraordinary circumstances that could conceivably warrant resort to the remedy of mandamus.

As this appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. 2 Hoey’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.