Full Opinion

BLD-010 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 26-3008 ___________ IN RE: PETER DAMIEN DIPIETRO, Petitioner ____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. October 8, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed November 13, 2026) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM Peter Damien DiPietro filed a mandamus petition asserting that the State of New Jersey has targeted him for exercising his right to travel, resulting in summonses, arrests, and having his car seized twice.1 He also asserts that the United States District Court for * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 Although DiPietro asked for his filing to be captioned as under “the Judiciary Act of 1789 and All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651,” we construe it as a mandamus petition. the District of New Jersey obstructed justice and violated his right to due process, access to the courts, jury trial, and damages by dismissing a case he filed2 and barring him from filing additional lawsuits in that court. DiPietro states that his “fatherly rights” were taken in another lawsuit as the result of a court psychologist’s actions. DiPietro asserts that the Gloucester County Superior Court inappropriately directed that county’s Sheriff to seize his home. And he accuses this Court of conspiracy for allegedly witnessing these harms without intervening. DiPietro specifically requests: (1) a criminal investigation into his United States District Court for the District of New Jersey cases; (2) that charges be brought against Mantua, Elk Township, and Ocean City judges, prosecutors, and police officers; (3) an order that “all common law rights apply” to him and “his property;” and (4) the return of stolen property. C.A. No. 1 at 1–2. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may not be used as a substitute for appeal.3 See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378–79 (3d Cir. 2005). Mandamus should not issue unless the petitioner has “no other adequate means to attain the relief” sought and has shown that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). 2 DiPietro, who has filed numerous actions in the District Court, does not specify to which suit he refers. 3 Insofar as DiPietro’s petition includes a request for a writ of certiorari, we do not have the authority to issue such writ. DiPietro has not shown that he has a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus. Regarding his federal cases, DiPietro may challenge the District Court’s orders through the normal appeal process.4 Regarding his state cases, we lack authority to intervene. See In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 781 (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.”). And with regard to DiPietro’s request that charges be brought against state officials and District Court judges, “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”5 See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Accordingly, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 4 To the extent that DiPietro may be unable to perfect timely appeals of these orders, mandamus relief does not become available merely because he allowed the time for an appeal to expire. See Oracare DPO, Inc. v. Merin, 972 F.2d 519, 523 (3d Cir. 1992). 5 We construe DiPietro’s request for an order that “all common law rights apply to me and my property” to be related to his state and federal actions. In any case, we do not render advisory opinions. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969).