Case: 25-1095 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 03/18/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ERROL STEWART TIERNEY, JAMES IGNATIUS DIAMOND, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as an Foreign State, ROB BONTA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a political subdi- visions of the State, CALIFORNIA BAR ASSOCIATION, political subdivision of the State, Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2025-1095 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 5:24-cv-01979-SVW- PD, Judge Stephen V. Wilson. ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER Errol Stewart Tierney and James Ignatius Diamond (collectively, “Tierney”) filed a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto in the United States District Court for the Cen- tral District of California against the State of California and various state entities. Tierney also requested a Case: 25-1095 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 03/18/2025

2 TIERNEY v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

temporary restraining order (“TRO”). The district court de- nied the TRO request and dismissed Tierney’s claims with prejudice. In view of the subject matter of the underlying case, this court directed the parties to show cause why this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. The parties have not responded. The court’s jurisdiction to review federal district court cases is generally limited to cases involving 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 Trade- mark Office, see § 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving 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 is outside of that limited subject matter jurisdiction. 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. Here, the court concludes it appropriate to transfer to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. FOR THE COURT

March 18, 2025 Date