Court Opinion

ID: 9403555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:49.351646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:07.975140
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1453    Document: 7      Page: 1   Filed: 06/08/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                TINA LOUISE ROBERTS,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

    STUDIO 15 MANAGEMENT, RUTH RIVERIA,
                  JOVANNA Q.,
               Defendants-Appellees
              ______________________

                        2023-1453
                  ______________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-00967-GPC-
AHG, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.
                 ______________________

PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
   Having received no response to the court’s February 21,
2023, order to show cause, we now transfer.
    Tina Louise Roberts filed the operative complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California, appearing to assert claims regarding torts
and civil rights violations against private defendants, seek-
ing $500,000.00 in damages. The district court dismissed
Case: 23-1453      Document: 7    Page: 2    Filed: 06/08/2023

2                          ROBERTS   v. STUDIO 15 MANAGEMENT

the complaint, and Ms. Roberts filed a notice of appeal ad-
dressed to this court.
     This appeal does not fall within the limited authority
that Congress granted this court to review decisions of fed-
eral district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). That juris-
diction extends only to cases arising under the patent laws,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the dis-
trict 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).
This case does not fall within that limited jurisdiction. We
thus transfer this appeal to United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. *
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
   This appeal and all transmittals are transferred to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
                                        FOR THE COURT

June 8, 2023                            /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
    Date                                Jarrett B. Perlow
                                        Acting Clerk of Court

    *   Ms. Roberts’ notice of appeal also lists the case
number of a matter Ms. Roberts appears to have filed in
the Superior Court for the State of California and includes
attachments of what appear to be documents filed in that
case and others in California state courts. This court does
not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts and lacks
the ability to transfer cases to such courts under § 1631.