Court Opinion

ID: 9891335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 14:01:00.531901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:01.934310
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1946    Document: 11     Page: 1   Filed: 10/18/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

           PATRICK LONNELL SHERMAN,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN
           DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS,
               Defendant-Appellee

                          DOES,
                        Defendant
                  ______________________

                        2023-1946
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Eastern District of Arkansas in No. 4:23-cv-00304-BSM,
 Judge Brian S. Miller.
                  ______________________

   Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
    In response to this court’s July 31, 2023, order to show
 cause, the appellee urges dismissal. Patrick Lonnell Sher-
 man has not responded.
Case: 23-1946    Document: 11       Page: 2   Filed: 10/18/2023

 2       SHERMAN v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF
                                                  ARKANSAS

     Mr. Sherman, who is currently incarcerated, filed a
 complaint at the United States District Court for the East-
 ern District of Arkansas, seeking $100,000,000 and assert-
 ing fraud, discrimination, and claims relating to the Prison
 Litigation Reform Act. The district court denied Mr. Sher-
 man’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
 dismissed his complaint without prejudice for failure to pay
 the filing fee. Mr. Sherman first filed a notice of appeal
 seeking review at the United States Court of Appeals for
 the Eighth Circuit, which was docketed at that court as Ap-
 peal No. 23-2185. Mr. Sherman then filed another notice
 of appeal seeking review of the same rulings at this court.
      Mr. Sherman’s appeal does not fall within the limited
 authority that Congress granted to this court to review de-
 cisions of federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a).
 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 dam-
 ages 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). This case does not involve such subject mat-
 ter.
     While this court has authority to transfer a case under
 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to a court that would have jurisdiction,
 Mr. Sherman has already filed an appeal of the district
 court order with the Eighth Circuit, so transfer here is un-
 necessary.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The appeal is dismissed.
     (2) All pending motions are denied.
Case: 23-1946    Document: 11    Page: 3      Filed: 10/18/2023

 SHERMAN v. U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF         3
 ARKANSAS

    (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                       FOR THE COURT

 October 18, 2023                      /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
      Date                             Jarrett B. Perlow
                                       Clerk of Court