Irina Collier v. University of California, Berkeley

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IRINA COLLIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1442
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:21-cv-00502-WHA,
Judge William H. Alsup.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Irina Collier moves for various relief. The court consid-
ers its jurisdiction over this matter.
Ms. Collier filed a complaint at the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of California seeking
relief under the False Claims Act. The district court dis-
missed her complaint, and the United States Court of
Case: 22-1442 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 05/26/2022

-- 1 of 2 --

COLLIER v. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 2
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed her appeal as friv-
olous. Ms. Collier then sought the district court’s leave to
file a motion for reconsideration, which the district court
denied on December 13, 2021. On January 3, 2022, Ms.
Collier filed an appeal of the December 13, 2021, order at
the Ninth Circuit, which is under seal but appears to re-
main pending. On February 1, 2022, Ms. Collier filed a no-
tice of appeal seeking to challenge the same district court
order in this court.
Although this court possesses jurisdiction to review
certain decisions of district courts, that jurisdiction is lim-
ited in a way that applies here: This court has jurisdiction
only over district court cases arising under the patent laws,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); or under § 1295(a)(4)(C); or cer-
tain cases against the United States for claims “not exceed-
ing $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). This court does not have jurisdiction
in False Claims Act cases. When this court lacks jurisdic-
tion, it may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer an ap-
peal to the appropriate regional circuit that has
jurisdiction. Here, however, the court sees no need to
transfer because Ms. Collier already has appealed the De-
cember 13, 2021, order to the Ninth Circuit.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) This appeal is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
May 26, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-1442 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 05/26/2022

-- 2 of 2 --