Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-01406/USCOURTS-ca10-04-01406-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forgery Electrical Online Partisipants
Appellee
Richard Meinig
Appellee
Carrie Lin Robertson
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

June 7, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

CARRIE LIN ROBERTSON, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

DR. RICHARD MEINIG, and 

FORGERY ELECTRICAL ONLINE 

PARTISIPANTS, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-1406 

(D.C. No. 04-F-1939 (CBS)) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before EBEL, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff Carrie Lin Robertson filed a complaint in federal district court 

alleging claims based on a "global authority" and seeking profit-recovery from 

Defendants for a "recompacted rear rabbit leg [and] reconformed rear rabbit tail," 

• After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 

34.1 (G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This 

Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of 

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the 

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be 

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-1406 Document: 010110646592 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 1
apparently relating to a medical invention. The district court sua sponte 

dismissed Robertson's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on 

September 22, 2004. 1 See Fed.R.Civ.P. l 2(h)(3) ("Whenever it appears by 

suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the 

subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action."). 

Robertson proceeds pro se; therefore, we construe her pleadings liberally 

and hold Robertson's submissions to a less stringent standard than formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 

1991 ). However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. United States 

ex rel. Grynberg v. Praxair, Inc., 389 F.3d 1038, 1048 (10th Cir. 2004). 

Therefore, as always, Plaintiff must show that a statutory basis for federal court 

jurisdiction exists before her case can be heard in federal court. Tsegay v. 

Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1347, 1353 (10th Cir. 2004). 

In this case, we have carefully considered Robertson's pro se complaint and 

given respectful attention to her arguments on appeal; however, we find no basis 

for federal court jurisdiction in this case. There is no assertion that this cause of 

1 As an alternative ground. the district court also held that Robertson's 

action is precluded by res judicata. Robertson has filed at least two prior actions 

against Dr. Meinig, both involving similar claims. Therefore, res judicata may 

well bar the present action; however, res judicata is not jurisdictional. See 

Kenmen Engineering v. Citv of Union, 314 F .3d 468, 4 79 (10th Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, we do not consider this alternative ground for dismissal on appeal. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 04-1406 Document: 010110646592 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 2
action is between citizens of different states, as required for diversity jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because Robertson asserts both she and Dr. Meinig are 

citizens of Colorado. Moreover, Robertson has not asserted any claims arising 

under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the United States as required 

for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

This court did consider passing references in Plaintiffs' pleadings referring 

to the invention at issue in terms of a "patent." Federal courts do have 

jurisdiction over "any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to 

patents, ... copyrights and trademarks." 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). However, suits 

brought that merely involve patents-but do not "arise under" federal patent 

law-are not within the federal court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1338(a). See Ausherman v. Stump, 643 F.2d 715,718 (10th Cir. 1981) (no§ 

l 338(a) jurisdiction over suit to enforce or annul contract dealing with patents); 

Cummings v. Moore, 202 F.2d 145, 147 (10th Cir. 1953) (no§ 1338(a) 

jurisdiction over suit where "gravamen of the claim ... is that a confidential 

relation existed between plaintiff and defendant; that in wrongful disregard of the 

relation defendant obtained a patent upon the invention of plaintiff; ... and that 

defendant should be required to deliver to plaintiff an assignment of such 

patent"). 

,., - .) -

Appellate Case: 04-1406 Document: 010110646592 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 3
Here, Robertson's pleadings do not cite to any specific patent at issue. 

Instead, the suit arises under a contract and "global authority'' that might involve 

a patent tangentially. The gravamen of Robertson's complaint seems to involve 

allegations of fraud and breach of contract. Accordingly, this suit does not ·'arise 

under" federal patent law or require construction of federal patent law. See 

generally 13B Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal 

Practice & Procedure§ 3582 (3d ed.1998). Therefore, we are without jurisdiction 

to hear this claim. 

For the foregoing reasons. we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this case. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 04-1406 Document: 010110646592 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 4