Opinion
2023-1453
06-08-2023
TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STUDIO 15 MANAGEMENT, RUTH RIVERIA, JOVANNA Q., Defendants-Appellees
This order is nonprecedential.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-00967-GPC-AHG, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Having received no response to the court's February 21, 2023, order to show cause, we now transfer.
Tina Louise Roberts filed the operative complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, appearing to assert claims regarding torts and civil rights violations against private defendants, seeking $500,000.00 in damages. The district court dismissed the complaint, and Ms. Roberts filed a notice of appeal addressed to this court.
This appeal does not fall within the limited authority that Congress granted this court to review decisions of federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). That jurisdiction extends only 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). This case does not fall within that limited jurisdiction. We thus transfer this appeal to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.[*]
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This appeal and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
[*] Ms. Roberts' notice of appeal also lists the case number of a matter Ms. Roberts appears to have filed in the Superior Court for the State of California and includes attachments of what appear to be documents filed in that case and others in California state courts. This court does not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts and lacks the ability to transfer cases to such courts under § 1631.