Case: 23-1411 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2023

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TINA LOUISE ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CARI OLSON, MATT MILLES, U.S. BANK, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-1411 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-01373-JLS- BLM, Judge Janis L. Sammartino. ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER Tina Louise Roberts appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California that dismissed her claims for civil rights viola- tions, torts, and theft against individuals associated with U.S. Bank and the bank itself. We now dismiss.

This appeal is outside of this court’s limited authority to review decisions of federal district courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). That jurisdiction is limited to only cases arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); Case: 23-1411 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2023

2 ROBERTS v. OLSON

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 ex- ceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). This case is not within one of those categories, and so we lack jurisdiction.

While we may transfer to another court, if it is in the interest of justice, where “the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed,” 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer is unnecessary given Ms. Roberts has a pending appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-55066, which is the appropriate court to review her appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291. Ms. Rob- erts’ most recent filing, ECF No. 12 at 1, appears to argue the merits of her case and states she “was de[ni]ed [her] appeal in [the] Ninth Distric[t]” (capitalization omitted).

But the Ninth Circuit has merely ordered Ms. Roberts to “file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and should go forward,” Roberts v. Olson, No. 23-55066, slip op. at 1 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2023).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: This appeal is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT April 17, 2023 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court