N OTE : This order is nonprecedential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, GOV ERNOR OF CA NEWSOME, GOVERNOR OF FL, MORGAN CHASE BANK, COLLIER

- GARBER S CHURCH, MENSA INC.

INTERNATIONAL, CHURC H OF SCIENTOLOGY, MORMON CHURCH, PRESI DENT 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

- DMS

DDL, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Irina C ollie r filed this suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 02/21/2024COLLIER v. TRUMP 2

various individuals and entities, asserting

, among other things, a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act

. T he 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 ba sis 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 [multi district 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 an d 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 simil ar motion to consolidate
her two appeals and transf er 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 d ecisions 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: 02/21/2024COLLIER v. TRUMP 3

§ 1292(c)(1). Ms. Collier’s complaint raises none of those types of claims. Nor do we find it to be i n 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,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

F ebruary 2 1

, 202 4
Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 02/21/2024