NOTE: This order is n0nprecedentia1.

United States Cou1“c of AppeaIs for the Federal Circuit ANTOINE SHOCKLEY, Plain,tiff-Appellant, V. JOHN FOX, WARDEN, T.C. OUTLAW, RICARDO RIOS, ASSISTANT WARDEN, G. MALDANEDO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AND HARRELL WATTS, NATIONAL INMATE APPEALS ADMINISTRATOR, Defendan,ts-Appellees, ` and RICARDO PIZARRO, HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR, DR. JOHN WOMBLE, AND DR. ANTONIO VILLASAN, Defendants-Appellees, and DR. HOLCOMBE AND DR. CHRISTI, Defend0m,ts-Appellees.

2011-1063 Appea1 from the United States Dist1'ict C0urt for the East;ern District of Texas in case n0. 07-CV-0904, Judge R0n Clark.

SHOCICEY V. FOX 2 ORDER Upon review of Antoine Shockley’s recently docketed appeal, we consider whether Shockley should be directed to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Shockley filed a complaint alleging constitutional rights violations. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted Shockley filed an appeal seeking review by this court.

This c0urt’s jurisdiction over appeals of district court decisions is limited primarily to cases involving patents and suits against the United States not exceeding $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. §1295 (a)(1), (2). lt does not appear that Shockley’s appeal is within this court’s juris- diction.

Accordingly, IT ls ORDERED THAr: (1) Shockley is directed to show cause within 21 days of the date of filing of this order why his appeal should not be dismissed or transferred to the Fifth Circuit. The appellees may also respond within that time (2) The briefing schedule is stayed SHoCKLEY v. FOX FoR THE CoURT NOV 23 2010 /s/ J an Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk cc: Ant0ine Shock1ey Carol Marie V. Garcia, Esq. . . Fl A“d"ea H Pa1"k‘”" ESq u.s.coum o'F§P>EAss¢=on ms FEnERALc1Rcun NUV_ 23 2010 .lAN HORBAL¥ CLERK