Court Opinion

ID: 9942561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 16:03:05.187256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:14.605266
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2420     Document: 22     Page: 1    Filed: 02/21/2024

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

    IRINA COLLIER, and for all similarly situated,
                Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

     DONALD J. TRUMP, GOVERNOR OF CA
  NEWSOME, GOVERNOR OF FL, MORGAN CHASE
 BANK, COLLIER-GARBERS CHURCH, MENSA INC.
  INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY,
 MORMON CHURCH, PRESIDENT OF SANDFORD,
          CHARLES WADE COLLIER,
              Defendants-Appellees
             ______________________

                         2023-2420
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of California in No. 3:23-cv-01248-DMS-
 DDL, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw.
                  ______________________

                       ON MOTION
                   ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                          ORDER
    Irina Collier filed this suit in the United States District
 Court for the Southern District of California against
Case: 23-2420     Document: 22     Page: 2    Filed: 02/21/2024

 2                                           COLLIER v. TRUMP

 various individuals and entities, asserting, among other
 things, a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced
 and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court found
 Ms. Collier’s action frivolous and denied her motion for
 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In particular, the dis-
 trict court determined that “[n]ot only does [the complaint]
 lack an arguable basis in law or fact, nearly the same exact
 [c]omplaint has been dismissed in this Court numerous
 times.” Dkt. 6 at 2; see also id. at 3 (“Plaintiff’s frivolous
 filings have placed a great burden on this Court, and courts
 across the country.”).
      Ms. Collier then filed a notice of appeal that was trans-
 mitted to this court. Because it appeared we lack jurisdic-
 tion, we directed the parties to show cause why this case
 should not be transferred or dismissed. Ms. Collier re-
 sponded opposing dismissal, ECF No. 15, and separately
 moved to transfer “to the [multidistrict litigation (MDL)]
 court in Washington D.C.” due to “the newly uncovered
 conflict of interest.” ECF No. 16 at 1; see also ECF No. 20
 (seeking the same relief). She moved to transfer both this
 appeal and Appeal No. 2023-2052 “to the MDL court.” Id.
 In Appeal No. 2023-2052, this court recently denied her pe-
 tition for panel rehearing of the court’s earlier order sum-
 marily affirming the judgment of the United States Court
 of Federal Claims, denied a similar motion to consolidate
 her two appeals and transfer to an MDL panel, and issued
 mandate on February 7, 2024. ECF Nos. 24, 28, 29 in Ap-
 peal No. 2023-2052.
     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.
Case: 23-2420      Document: 22      Page: 3     Filed: 02/21/2024

 COLLIER v. TRUMP                                                3

 § 1292(c)(1). Ms. Collier’s complaint raises none of those
 types of claims. Nor do we find it to be in the “interest of
 justice” to transfer this case, which is frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
 § 1631; Britell v. United States, 318 F.3d 70, 75 (1st Cir.
 2003) (“[I]t is in the interest of justice to dismiss [a frivolous
 appeal] rather than to keep it on life support (with the in-
 evitable result that the transferee court will pull the plug).”
 (citation omitted)).
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The appeal is dismissed.
     (2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
     (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
                                                  FOR THE COURT

 February 21, 2024
       Date