Tina Louise Roberts v. Cari Olson, Matt Milles, U.s. Bank

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TINA LOUISE ROBERTS,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CARI OLSON, MATT MILLES, U.S. BANK,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2023-1411
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in No. 3:22-cv-01373-JLS-
BLM, Judge Janis L. Sammartino.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Tina Louise Roberts appeals from the judgment of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California that dismissed her claims for civil rights viola-
tions, torts, and theft against individuals associated with
U.S. Bank and the bank itself. We now dismiss.
This appeal is outside of this court’s limited authority
to review decisions of federal district courts pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a). That jurisdiction is limited to only cases
arising under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1);
Case: 23-1411 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2023

-- 1 of 2 --

ROBERTS v. OLSON 2
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 ex-
ceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). This case is not within one of those
categories, and so we lack jurisdiction.
While 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,
transfer is unnecessary given Ms. Roberts has a pending
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, No. 23-55066, which is the appropriate court
to review her appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291. Ms. Rob-
erts’ most recent filing, ECF No. 12 at 1, appears to argue
the merits of her case and states she “was de[ni]ed [her]
appeal in [the] Ninth Distric[t]” (capitalization omitted).
But the Ninth Circuit has merely ordered Ms. Roberts to
“file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous
and should go forward,” Roberts v. Olson, No. 23-55066,
slip op. at 1 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2023).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
This appeal is dismissed.
April 17, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-1411 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2023

-- 2 of 2 --