Case Name: Hendrick W. HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-14
Citations: 308 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 07-35183
Parties: Hendrick W. HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Hendrick W. HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-35183.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 14, 2009.
Hendrick W. Haynes, Renton, pro se.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Esq., USSE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hendrick W. Haynes appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his action against the United States, raising patent, antitrust, and civil rights claims. We lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 900 F.2d 195, 196-97 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that this Court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal when the case involves patent issues, which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). We therefore dismiss.
Haynes's "motion to divide complaint" is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) ("The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction . of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States . if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338[.]") (emphasis added).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.