In re: RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534- 35 1999 . Thus, “the

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-133
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez petitions for a writ of man-
damus appearing to request this court direct several fed-
eral district courts to take certain actions in his prior cases
involving torts and civil rights claims, contract disputes,
Social Security benefits, and attempts to remove state
court proceedings. He also moves for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and for various other relief, including
transfer.
The All Writs Act provides that federal courts “may is-
sue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respec-
tive jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute
makes clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of
Case: 23-133 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: CALDERON LOPEZ 2
jurisdiction, see Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–
35 (1999). Thus, “the petitioner must initially show that
the action sought to be corrected by mandamus is within
this court’s statutorily defined subject matter jurisdiction.”
Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp., 710 F.2d
1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Mr. Calderon Lopez has failed
to do so.
Our review authority over appeals from United States
district courts is generally limited to certain cases involv-
ing patent law matters, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1),
1295(a)(4)(C), or certain 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). The cases
identified in Mr. Calderon Lopez’s petition do not fall
within that limited jurisdiction, and we must reject his in-
vitation to assert “ancillary jurisdiction” over them.* Nor
can we say it would be in the interest of justice to transfer
his petition to another court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is dismissed.
* To the extent the cover letter to Mr. Calderon
Lopez’s petition may suggest that he seeks further action
related to his prior appeal before this court, Lopez v. United
States, Appeal No. 2022-2137, that appeal was dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction and his petition for rehearing en
banc has been denied. As the Clerk of Court has explained
to Mr. Calderon Lopez, that case is now over.
Case: 23-133 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 10/13/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: CALDERON LOPEZ 3
(2) All other motions are denied.
October 13, 2023
Date
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-133 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 10/13/2023

-- 3 of 3 --