Arnoldo Rojero v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ARNOLDO ROJERO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.

2011-5111

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in case no. 10-CV-670, Senior Judge James F.
Merow.

## ON MOTION

Before BRYSON, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Arnoldo Rojero moves for a "stay or injunction." The
United States responds to this court's August 22, 2011
order to show cause why this appeal should not be dis-
missed. Rojero has not responded.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="ROJERO v. US" -->

Rojero, who is currently serving a 264-month sentence
at a Federal Correctional Institution in Texas, brought a
complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims,
asserting a variety of grievances against prison officials,
unlawful imprisonment, and a wrongful death claim
involving relatives. Although the Court of Federal Claims
initially dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction, it
reconsidered the matter, and on June 27, 2011 issued an
order transferring the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1631 to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. Rojero has appealed that ruling to this
court and has also filed a motion seeking injunctive relief.

As this case involves an order transferring the case
from the Court of Federal Claims to district court, this is
not an appeal of a final judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291; nor does it meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1292(d)(4)(A), which allows an appeal to this court of a
district court's order transferring a case to the Court of
Federal Claims, but not vice versa.

Rojero's appeal also does not appear to meet the crite-
ria for a collateral order appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial
Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), namely, whether
the order (1) conclusively determines the disputed ques-
tion, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate
from the merits of the action, and (3) is effectively unre-
viewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Coopers &
Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978). The jurisdic-
tional issue, whether the Court of Federal Claims or the
district court might have jurisdiction over Rojero's com-
plaint, could be effectively reviewed upon any appeal from
a final judgment.

For the same reason, Rojero cannot meet the exacting
requirements for a writ of mandamus, which require him
to demonstrate he has no alternative means of obtaining
the relief requested and that the trial court clearly abused

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="ROJERO v. US" -->

its discretion. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,
309 (1989).

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are moot.

FOR THE COURT

NOV 14 2011

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Arnoldo Rojero
Alexander V. Sverdlov, Esq.
s19

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
NOV 14 2011

Issued As A Mandate:

NOV 14 2011

JAN HORBALY
CLERK