Mike Webb v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MIKE WEBB,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2022-2065
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in No. 1:22-cv-01595-UNA, Judge
Dabney Langhorne Friedrich.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
In response to the September 21, 2022, order to show
cause, the Attorney General urges dismissal of this appeal.
Mike Webb urges transfer and separately moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
Mr. Webb’s complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia seeks a declaratory
Case: 22-2065 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2022

-- 1 of 2 --

WEBB v. GARLAND 2
judgment and injunctive relief related to the recognition of
Juneteenth as a federal holiday. After the district court
denied Mr. Webb’s motion to proceed IFP, Mr. Webb ap-
pealed that decision to this court and the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Although we possesses jurisdiction to review certain
decisions of federal district courts, that jurisdiction is lim-
ited in a way that applies here: this court has jurisdiction
only over cases 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
§ 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the
United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28
U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C.§ 1295(a)(2). Mr. Webb’s
complaint did not raise any subject matter within that lim-
ited review authority.
When this court lacks jurisdiction, we may transfer to
an appropriate court if it is in the interest of justice. 28
U.S.C. § 1631. Because Mr. Webb already has a pending
appeal from the denial of his IFP motion before the D.C.
Circuit, we see no reason to transfer.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
December 9, 2022
Date
FOR THE C OURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-2065 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2022

-- 2 of 2 --