Court Opinion

ID: 9387252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-17 14:01:25.379067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:12.615434
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1411    Document: 13      Page: 1    Filed: 04/17/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                TINA LOUISE ROBERTS,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

       CARI OLSON, MATT MILLES, U.S. BANK,
                Defendants-Appellees
               ______________________

                         2023-1411
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-01373-JLS-
 BLM, Judge Janis L. Sammartino.
                 ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                         ORDER
     Tina Louise Roberts appeals from the judgment of the
 United States District Court for the Southern District of
 California that dismissed her claims for civil rights viola-
 tions, torts, and theft against individuals associated with
 U.S. Bank and the bank itself. We now dismiss.
     This appeal is outside of this court’s limited authority
 to review decisions of federal district courts pursuant to 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a). That jurisdiction is limited to only cases
 arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1);
Case: 23-1411     Document: 13     Page: 2    Filed: 04/17/2023

 2                                           ROBERTS   v. OLSON

 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). This case is not within one of those
 categories, and so we lack jurisdiction.
      While 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,
 transfer is unnecessary given Ms. Roberts has a pending
 appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
 Ninth Circuit, No. 23-55066, which is the appropriate court
 to review her appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291. Ms. Rob-
 erts’ most recent filing, ECF No. 12 at 1, appears to argue
 the merits of her case and states she “was de[ni]ed [her]
 appeal in [the] Ninth Distric[t]” (capitalization omitted).
 But the Ninth Circuit has merely ordered Ms. Roberts to
 “file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous
 and should go forward,” Roberts v. Olson, No. 23-55066,
 slip op. at 1 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2023).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     This appeal is dismissed.
                                    FOR THE COURT

 April 17, 2023                     /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
      Date                          Peter R. Marksteiner
                                    Clerk of Court