ALD-115 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-1183 ___________

IN RE: PETER DIPIETRO, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. March 30, 2023

Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 26, 2023) _________

OPINION * _________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Peter DiPietro seeks a writ of mandamus. Because DiPietro has

not demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his petition.

DiPietro’s mandamus petition appears to seek this Court’s assistance with a state

court criminal matter. He has attached a motion that he filed in that case, as well as a

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. decision denying his motion. He appears to request an “accounting” and “subrogation

from [an] implied trust to [an] expressed trust.” See Mandamus Pet. at 1. DiPietro takes

issue with “repudiation/dishonor” by a state court judge. Id. DiPietro has also attached

filings from a state court eviction proceeding involving a cottage in a recreational resort

community. DiPietro does not identify any pending federal action in his petition.

A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted “only in

extraordinary circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of

power.” In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,

, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation

omitted). Although DiPietro’s requests are difficult to decipher, to the extent that he

seeks this Court’s intervention in a pending or completed state court action, we lack

authority to grant such relief. See In re Richards,

(3d Cir. 2000) (“[I]n

the ordinary course of events, federal courts (except for the Supreme Court) lack

appellate jurisdiction over their state counterparts, thus making writs of mandamus

generally inappropriate.”); White v. Ward,

(10th Cir. 1998) (per

curiam) (explaining that a federal court “lack[s] jurisdiction to direct a state court to

perform its duty”). We also generally do not interfere with state criminal prosecutions.

See Younger v. Harris,

(1971). Accordingly, because DiPietro has not

shown a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief, and that no other means exist to

attain the relief he desires, we will deny his petition. See Hollingsworth v. Perry,

(2010) (per curiam).

2