Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez v. Tigran Gumushyan, Darryl Onizuka, Doe Vazquez

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TIGRAN GUMUSHYAN, DARRYL ONIZUKA, DOE
VAZQUEZ,
Defendants
COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1765
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:15-cv-03063-DSF-
AGR, Judge Dale S. Fischer.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The United States moves to dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction stating that Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez
Case: 25-1765 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

CALDERON LOPEZ v. GUMUSHYAN 2
opposes the motion. Mr. Calderon Lopez has not filed a
response.
On April 24, 2015, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed the under-
lying complaint in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (CDCA) seeking social secu-
rity benefits. The case was eventually transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (NDCA). In May 2017, the NDCA entered judg-
ment dismissing the case and, in June 2017, granted Mr.
Calderon Lopez leave to proceed in forma pauperis on ap-
peal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the NDCA’s judgment in 2018.
Since that time, Mr. Calderon Lopez has unsuccess-
fully filed an appeal at this court from the NDCA’s June
2017 order, various requests for relief at the CDCA, and
another appeal at the Ninth Circuit, which was dismissed
“for lack of jurisdiction, and as duplicative of [his earlier]
closed appeal.” Dkt. No. 87 at 2. Undeterred, Mr. Calderon
Lopez in January 2025 moved the CDCA for “reassignment
of judicial officers,” Dkt. No. 100 at 1, which was denied on
April 30, 2025. He now attempts to appeal that order to
this court.
As we previously informed Mr. Calderon Lopez,1 our
jurisdiction to review district court decisions 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). Mr.
1 See Calderon Lopez v. Off. of the Sec’y of State, Ap-
peal No. 2024-1964, ECF No. 4 at 2 n.1 (Fed. Cir. July 23,
2024) (collecting cases).
Case: 25-1765 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

CALDERON LOPEZ v. GUMUSHYAN 3
Calderon Lopez’s case, seeking social security benefits,
does not fall within that jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(h).
When we lack 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. Even assuming this appeal could have
been brought in the Ninth Circuit, we find that transfer
would not be in the interest of justice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted, the appeal is dis-
missed, and any other pending motion is denied.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 8, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1765 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2025

-- 3 of 3 --