Federal Circuit disposition — 25-143

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
O R D E R
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: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE CALDERON LOPEZ 2
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: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE CALDERON LOPEZ 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is dismissed.
September 11, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-143 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 3 of 3 --