Case: 25-143 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Star- light Consulting Services, Petitioner ______________________ 2025-143 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Central District of California in No. 2:23-cv-08579-DMG-SHK, Judge Dolly M. Gee. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of Cal- ifornia against local government entities, seeking $5,000,000 for alleged injury sustained from their opera- tion of a municipal bus. After the district court’s dismissal of the complaint in 2024 and three unsuccessful appeals,1

1 See Calderon Lopez v. L.A. Cty. Met. Transp. Auth., No. 24-0352, ECF No. 39 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. L.A. Cty. Met. Transp. Auth., No. 2024-1998, ECF Case: 25-143 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

2 IN RE CALDERON LOPEZ

Mr. Calderon Lopez now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus to “vacate the lower courts denial of protected rights” and grant[] preliminary injunction [and] summary judgements.” ECF No. 2 at 2.

The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their re- spective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and prin- ciples of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The Act is not itself a grant of jurisdiction. Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35 (1999). As we have repeatedly informed Mr. Cal- deron Lopez,2 this court’s jurisdiction over district court de- cisions is 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 Trademark Office, see id. § 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” id. § 1346(a)(2), see id. § 1295(a)(2). Again, Mr. Calderon Lopez’s case does not fall within that jurisdiction.

Mr. Calderon Lopez is specifically warned that he may be sanctioned, including the imposition of monetary and non-monetary penalties, if he files another matter with this court involving a case that does not plausibly fall within this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

No. 4 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. L.A. Cty.

Met. Transp. Auth., No. 25-809, ECF No. 39 (9th Cir. July 17, 2025).

2 See, e.g., Calderon Lopez v. Gumushyan, No. 2025- 1765, ECF No. 10 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025); Calderon Lopez v. Off. of the Sec’y of State, No. 2024-1964, ECF No. 4 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. O’Malley, No. 2025- 1698, ECF No. 22 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024); In re Calderon Lopez, No. 2023-133, ECF No. 23 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023).

Case: 25-143 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025

IN RE CALDERON LOPEZ 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT

September 11, 2025 Date