NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IRINA COLLIER, and for all similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, GOVERNOR OF CA 

NEWSOME, GOVERNOR OF FL, MORGAN CHASE 

BANK, COLLIER-GARBERS CHURCH, MENSA INC.

INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, 

MORMON CHURCH, PRESIDENT OF SANDFORD, 

CHARLES WADE COLLIER,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2023-2420

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California in No. 3:23-cv-01248-DMSDDL, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Irina Collier filed this suit in the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of California against 

Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 02/21/2024
2 COLLIER v. TRUMP

various individuals and entities, asserting, among other 

things, a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced 

and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court found 

Ms. Collier’s action frivolous and denied her motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In particular, the district court determined that “[n]ot only does [the complaint] 

lack an arguable basis in law or fact, nearly the same exact 

[c]omplaint has been dismissed in this Court numerous 

times.” Dkt. 6 at 2; see also id. at 3 (“Plaintiff’s frivolous 

filings have placed a great burden on this Court, and courts 

across the country.”). 

Ms. Collier then filed a notice of appeal that was transmitted to this court. Because it appeared we lack jurisdiction, we directed the parties to show cause why this case 

should not be transferred or dismissed. Ms. Collier responded opposing dismissal, ECF No. 15, and separately 

moved to transfer “to the [multidistrict litigation (MDL)] 

court in Washington D.C.” due to “the newly uncovered 

conflict of interest.” ECF No. 16 at 1; see also ECF No. 20 

(seeking the same relief). She moved to transfer both this 

appeal and Appeal No. 2023-2052 “to the MDL court.” Id. 

In Appeal No. 2023-2052, this court recently denied her petition for panel rehearing of the court’s earlier order summarily affirming the judgment of the United States Court 

of Federal Claims, denied a similar motion to consolidate 

her two appeals and transfer to an MDL panel, and issued 

mandate on February 7, 2024. ECF Nos. 24, 28, 29 in Appeal No. 2023-2052.

This appeal does not fall within the limited authority 

that Congress granted this court to review decisions of federal district courts. That jurisdiction generally extends to 

cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court 

from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see

§1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the 

United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 

U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 

Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 02/21/2024
COLLIER v. TRUMP 3

§ 1292(c)(1). Ms. Collier’s complaint raises none of those 

types of claims. Nor do we find it to be in the “interest of 

justice” to transfer this case, which is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1631; Britell v. United States, 318 F.3d 70, 75 (1st Cir. 

2003) (“[I]t is in the interest of justice to dismiss [a frivolous 

appeal] rather than to keep it on life support (with the inevitable result that the transferee court will pull the plug).” 

(citation omitted)).

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

February 21, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 02/21/2024