Court Opinion

ID: 9895208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 15:00:48.154612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:14.111159
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2169    Document: 7      Page: 1   Filed: 11/06/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

              CHRISTOPHER K. ALONSO,
                  Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

  WILLIAM QUAN, POLI FLORES, (NFN) ROSS, M.
    LEPE NEGRETE, CHRISTOPHER PLOURD,
             Defendants-Appellees
            ______________________

                        2023-2169
                  ______________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in No. 3:23-cv-00760-WQH-
NLS, Judge William Q. Hayes.
                 ______________________

PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     Christopher K. Alonso filed this suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
against five California Superior Court judges, asserting vi-
olations of his civil rights. After the district court dis-
missed his complaint, Mr. Alonso filed a notice of appeal
that was transmitted to this court. Because it appeared we
lacked jurisdiction, we directed the parties to show cause
why this case should not be transferred or dismissed. Hav-
ing now considered Mr. Alonso’s response, we transfer.
Case: 23-2169        Document: 7   Page: 2   Filed: 11/06/2023

2                                            ALONSO v. QUAN

     This appeal does not fall within the limited authority
that Congress granted this court to review decisions of fed-
eral district courts. 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 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); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(c)(1). Mr. Alonso asserts that “[t]he judges are fed-
eral authorities,” ECF No. 6 at 1, but that appears to be
inaccurate. Lacking jurisdiction, we may transfer to an-
other 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 Ninth Circuit.
      Accordingly,
      IT IS ORDERED THAT:
   This appeal and all transmittals are transferred to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
                                               FOR THE COURT

    November 6, 2023
         Date