Late Friday and this morning, the Federal Circuit released six nonprecedential orders. One transfers an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one grants a motion to dismiss an appeal subject to reinstatement, and four dismiss appeals. The Federal Circuit also released a Rule 36 judgment and an erratum. Here is text from the orders and links to the dismissals, Rule 36 judgment, and erratum.
Finn v. State of New York (Nonprecedential Order)
In response to this court’s November 21, 2022, show cause order, George H. Finn argues in favor of this court’s jurisdiction. Appellees have not responded.
This case involves a land dispute in which Mr. Finn has alleged various civil rights and criminal violations. After the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed his complaint, Mr. Finn filed a notice of appeal seeking review in this court.
Mr. Finn’s appeal does not come 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 over 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). Mr. Finn’s case does not fall into any of these categories, as his complaint does not assert claims against the United States (the defendants are the State of New York and several private individuals and entities).
This court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, shall, if in the interest of justice, transfer an appeal to another court where it could have been brought at the time it was filed. Here, that court is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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.
Imprenta Services, Inc. v. Karll (Nonprecedential Order)
Nicholas Patrick Karll and Eco Packaging Solutions (collectively, “Eco”) move to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Imprenta Services, Inc. and Mike Sanchez (collectively, “Imprenta”) oppose dismissal.
* * *
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject, however, to reinstatement under the same docket number without the payment of an additional filing fee if, within 60 days of this order, Imprenta appeals from the entry of a final judgment appealable under either 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c) or § 1295(a)(1) or from a judgment entered under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
- NLMK Pennsylvania, LLC v. United States
- Green v. McDonough
- Shibuya Kogyo Co., Ltd. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.
- Low Temp Industries, Inc. v. Duke Manufacturing Co.