Case: 25-1273 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 05/19/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TRAVIS HENNEGHAN, TIMOTHY HENNEGHAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MURIEL BOWSER, Mayor of the District of Colum- bia, BRIAN SCHWALB, Attorney General of the Dis- trict of Columbia, PAMELA A. SMITH, Chief of Police for the Metropolitan Police Department, TIMOTHY W. SPRINGGS, Director of the District of Columbia Department of Public Works, Defendants ______________________ 2025-1273, 2025-1274 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in No. 1:24-cv-01683-JEB, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg. ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER The court has received no response to its February 21, 2025 show cause order regarding whether these appeals should be dismissed or transferred. We now dismiss.

Case: 25-1273 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 05/19/2025

2 HENNEGHAN v. BOWSER

In June 2024, Travis Henneghan and Timothy Henne- ghan (collectively, “the Henneghans”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colum- bia against various District of Columbia entities, appear- ing to allege, inter alia, kidnapping, harassment, discrimination, and violations of their constitutional rights when the Henneghans were removed from their father’s custody in 2012. See Dkt. No. 1 at 4. On November 26, 2024, the Henneghans each filed a notice of appeal seeking this court’s review of the district court’s minute order di- recting them to show cause how their allegations give rise to a federal cause of action.

These appeals do not fall within the limited authority that Congress granted this court to review decisions of fed- eral district courts. That jurisdiction extends only 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 ex- ceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). While 28 U.S.C. § 1631 authorizes this court to transfer a case to another appropriate court “if it is in the interest of justice,” here such transfer would not be in the interest of justice because, at the time of the no- tices of appeal, the Henneghans were seeking review of an order that was clearly interlocutory and not appealable to any court.1 Accordingly,

1 Although the district court subsequently dis- missed, the Henneghans did not file a new or amended no- tice of appeal from that dismissal order or respond to this court’s show cause order to explain why transfer would be appropriate under the circumstances.

Case: 25-1273 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 05/19/2025

HENNEGHAN v. BOWSER 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeals are dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

May 19, 2025 Date