Court Opinion

ID: 9890541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 15:01:40.140416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.377773
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1851     Document: 36     Page: 1    Filed: 10/13/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                      BLAKE JONES,
                      Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

     RONDA M. FOWLKES GROSS, TODD HUNT,
        JAMES O’SHEA, DAVID PERKINS,
               Defendants-Appellees
              ______________________

                         2023-1851
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Eastern District of Michigan in No. 2:23-cv-10520-SJM-CI,
 Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III.
                   ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                          ORDER
     Having considered Blake Jones’s response to the
 court’s July 20, 2023, show cause order, we now transfer
 his case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
 Circuit.
     Mr. Jones brought this suit against two Michigan state
 court judges and two local police officers, asserting claims
 relating to his arrest and a petition in probate court for his
 mental health treatment. The United States District Court
Case: 23-1851    Document: 36      Page: 2    Filed: 10/13/2023

 2                                   JONES v. FOWLKES GROSS

 for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed, and Mr.
 Jones filed a notice of appeal seeking this court’s review.
      This appeal does not fall within the limited authority
 that Congress granted this court to review decisions of fed-
 eral district courts. That jurisdiction extends only 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 ex-
 ceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). Lacking juris-
 diction, we may transfer to another court where “the action
 or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed,”
 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, the appropriate court is the United
 States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
     Upon consideration thereof,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    This appeal and all transmittals are transferred to the
 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pur-
 suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
                                        FOR THE COURT

 October 13, 2023                       /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
      Date                              Jarrett B. Perlow
                                        Clerk of Court