James v. United States

Case: 26-1439 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/11/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SHARON M. JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, CIRCUIT CHIEF JUSTICE CHAGARES, CIRCUIT JUSTICE KENT JORDAN, HON. PATTY SHWARTZ, HON. COLM F.

CONNOLLY, HON. RICHARD G. ANDREWS, Defendants-Appellees JOHN CERINO, MARYELLEN NOREIKA, Defendants ______________________ 2026-1439 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in Nos. 1:23-cv-00914-MN and 1:24- cv-00942-MN, Judge Maryellen Noreika. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER Case: 26-1439 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 06/11/2026

2 JAMES v. US

Sharon M. James appeals from decisions in two cases before the United States District Court for the District of Delaware rejecting her claims for $50,000,000 in damages due to purported judicial conflicts regarding her private employment discrimination case. In response to this court’s show cause order, appellees urge dismissal, while Ms. James objects and indicates that she believes the ap- peal should proceed here and not the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of federal district courts is generally limited to appeals 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 id. § 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” id. § 1346(a)(2), see id. § 1295(a)(2).

This appeal falls outside of that limited review authority.1 Under the circumstances, we see no need to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because of Ms. James’s currently-pending appeal in the Third Circuit, James v. United States, No. 2025-2940 (3d Cir. Oct. 10, 2025).2 Finally, Ms. James appears to challenge the show cause order on the mistaken belief that it was issued only by the Clerk of Court. That order was in fact issued by a judge of this court and merely signed by the Clerk of Court.

See Fed. Cir. R. 45(c) (authorizing the Clerk of Court to sign

1 We likewise lack jurisdiction to consider Ms. James’s request for recusal or disqualification of Third Cir- cuit judges.

2 Ms. James appears to request that, in the event we conclude our jurisdiction is lacking, we transfer to a court other than the Third Circuit, but she identifies no other ap- propriate court with jurisdiction, nor are we aware of any.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294.

Case: 26-1439 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 06/11/2026

JAMES v. US 3 a document “[f]or the [c]ourt” when directed by a judge or the court). Similarly, for avoidance of doubt, this order is issued by a panel of three judges of this court.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

June 11, 2026 Date