Opinion
2023-2023
10-18-2023
JASON GOODE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROLLIN COOK, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction, in his official and individual capacities, SCOTT SEMPLE, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction, Retired, in his individual capacity, WILLIAM JOSEPH MURPHY, Director, Programs and Treatment Division, Connecticut Department of Correction, in his official and individual capacities, ELLEN DURKO, RN, Connecticut Department of Correction, in her individual capacity, KRISTINE BARRONE, Warden, MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, Connecticut Department of Correction, in her official and individual capacities, GIULIANA MUDANO, Warden, Northern Correctional Institution, Connecticut Department of Correction, in her official and individual capacities, ANGEL QUIROS, Deputy Commissioner, Operations and Rehabilitative Ser- vices Division, in his official and individual capacities, DAVID MAIGA, Director, Offender Classification and Population Management, Con- necticut Department of Correction, in his official and individual capacities, ANDREA REISCHERL, Psychiatric APRN, Connecticut Department of Correction, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
This order is nonprecedential.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in No. 3:20-cv-00210-VAB, Judge Victor A. Bolden.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Jason Goode filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to his imprisonment. After the district court granted summary judgment against his claims, Mr. Goode filed this appeal. In response to this court's July 31, 2023, order to show cause, the appellees urge dismissal of this appeal. Mr. Goode "argues for the proper transfer[] of this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit." ECF No. 16 at 1.
Mr. Goode's appeal does not fall within the limited authority that Congress granted to this court to review decisions of federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). 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). This is not one of those cases.
Though the appellees urge dismissal, we deem it the better course to transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.