Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 02/21/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IRINA COLLIER, and for all similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, GOVERNOR OF CA NEWSOME, GOVERNOR OF FL, MORGAN CHASE BANK, COLLIER-GARBERS CHURCH, MENSA INC. INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, MORMON CHURCH, PRESIDENT OF SANDFORD, CHARLES WADE COLLIER, Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2023-2420 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in No. 3:23-cv-01248-DMS- DDL, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Irina Collier filed this suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 02/21/2024

2 COLLIER v. TRUMP

various individuals and entities, asserting, among other things, a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court found Ms. Collier’s action frivolous and denied her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In particular, the dis- trict court determined that “[n]ot only does [the complaint] lack an arguable basis in law or fact, nearly the same exact [c]omplaint has been dismissed in this Court numerous times.” Dkt. 6 at 2; see also id. at 3 (“Plaintiff’s frivolous filings have placed a great burden on this Court, and courts across the country.”). Ms. Collier then filed a notice of appeal that was trans- mitted to this court. Because it appeared we lack jurisdic- tion, we directed the parties to show cause why this case should not be transferred or dismissed. Ms. Collier re- sponded opposing dismissal, ECF No. 15, and separately moved to transfer “to the [multidistrict litigation (MDL)] court in Washington D.C.” due to “the newly uncovered conflict of interest.” ECF No. 16 at 1; see also ECF No. 20 (seeking the same relief). She moved to transfer both this appeal and Appeal No. 2023-2052 “to the MDL court.” Id. In Appeal No. 2023-2052, this court recently denied her pe- tition for panel rehearing of the court’s earlier order sum- marily affirming the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, denied a similar motion to consolidate her two appeals and transfer to an MDL panel, and issued mandate on February 7, 2024. ECF Nos. 24, 28, 29 in Ap- peal No. 2023-2052. This appeal does not fall within the limited authority that Congress granted this court to review decisions of fed- eral district courts. 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. Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 02/21/2024

COLLIER v. TRUMP 3

§ 1292(c)(1). Ms. Collier’s complaint raises none of those types of claims. Nor do we find it to be in the “interest of justice” to transfer this case, which is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Britell v. United States, 318 F.3d 70, 75 (1st Cir. 2003) (“[I]t is in the interest of justice to dismiss [a frivolous appeal] rather than to keep it on life support (with the in- evitable result that the transferee court will pull the plug).” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

February 21, 2024 Date