NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VINCENT CURTIS CONYERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1778

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York in No. 2:16-cv-00013-RRMJMW, Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf.

______________________

Before STOLL, MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Responding to the court’s May 27, 2022, order to show 

cause, the Department of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal 

or transfer. Vincent Curtis Conyers argues that this court 

has jurisdiction to hear his appeal but does not oppose 

transfer if we determine jurisdiction is lacking. 

Mr. Conyers filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging 

Case: 22-1778 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 07/20/2022
2 CONYERS v. DVA

the Department of Veterans Affairs violated the Privacy 

Act of 1974. The district court ultimately dismissed, and

Mr. Conyers now appeals. 

Our jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts is 

circumscribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Under that statute, 

this court has jurisdiction only over district court cases 

arising under the patent laws, see § 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). Mr. Conyers’s Privacy Act suit, filed in 

district court, falls outside of that limited jurisdiction.1 We 

must also reject Mr. Conyers’s argument that this court 

has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292. Resp. at 3. That 

statute gives this court jurisdiction only over “a decision of 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” 

1 Although Mr. Conyers contends that it is “reasonable to construe the essence of [his Privacy Act] claims as 

being based in part on [the Little Tucker Act,] § 1346(a)(2),” 

Resp. at 22, “[c]laims brought under statutes, such as the 

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5), that independently confer jurisdiction upon the district court and waive sovereign 

immunity for money claims against the United States are 

not deemed to be ‘based on’ the Tucker Act for the purposes 

of determining appellate jurisdiction,” Martinez v. Bureau 

of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620, 622 (D.C. Cir. 2006). We do not 

see a basis to interpret Mr. Conyers’s claims, which were 

specifically premised on the Privacy Act, any differently. 

See Bias v. United States, 722 F. App’x 1009, 1014 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018) (collecting cases noting that claims brought under the Privacy Act do not fall within the ambit of the 

Tucker Act). 

Case: 22-1778 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 07/20/2022
CONYERS v. DVA 3

Mr. Conyers is not seeking review of a decision of that 

court.2 

When this court lacks jurisdiction, we may transfer to 

another court, if it is in the interest of justice, where “the 

action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was 

filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, that court would be the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The appeal and all transmittals are transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

July 20, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

 

2 Because we lack jurisdiction, we also must decline 

Mr. Conyers’s suggestion that his appeal be treated as a 

petition for a writ of mandamus. See Baker Perkins, Inc. v. 

Werner & Pfleiderer Corp., 710 F.2d 1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 

1983) (“The All Writs Act is not an independent basis of 

jurisdiction, and the petitioner must initially show that the 

action sought to be corrected by mandamus is within this 

court’s statutorily defined subject matter jurisdiction.”).

Case: 22-1778 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 07/20/2022