Opinion
2022-1805
07-20-2022
RICHARD T. PARMLEE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPT. OF REVENUE SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees
This order is nonprecedential.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in Nos. 3:21-cv-01292-MPS and 3:21-cv-01294-MPS, Judge Michael P. Shea.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Richard T. Parmlee filed two complaints with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against various agencies and individuals associated with the state of Connecticut, alleging various civil rights violations and other disputes stemming from an earlier settlement in a 1994 case involving discrimination claims. The district court consolidated the cases and ultimately dismissed the claims. Mr. Parmlee appealed to this court. On May 27, 2022, this court directed the parties to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed or transferred. ECF No. 4. The parties thereafter filed their responses.[*]
We do not have jurisdiction over Mr. Parmlee's appeal. This court possesses jurisdiction over only certain appeals from federal district courts, including cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1295(a)(4)(C), and certain cases against the United States for claims "not exceeding $10,000 in amount," 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). None of these apply to Mr. Parmlee's appeal.
When this court lacks jurisdiction, it may, "if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such . . . appeal" to the appropriate court. 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Under the circumstances of this case, we deem it the better course to transfer to the regional circuit where the appeal could have been brought. Here, that is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal and all filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
[*] Mr. Parmlee also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") on appeal, ECF No. 6, but the motion appears to be moot in light of the district court's grant of IFP status for Mr. Parmlee, No. 3:21-cv-01292, ECF No. 23 (Jan. 13, 2022). See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).