Travis Henneghan, Timothy Henneghan v. MURIEL BOWSER, Mayor of the District of Colum- bia, BRIAN SCHWALB, Attorney General…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TRAVIS HENNEGHAN, TIMOTHY HENNEGHAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
MURIEL BOWSER, Mayor of the District of Colum-
bia, BRIAN SCHWALB, Attorney General of the Dis-
trict of Columbia, PAMELA A. SMITH, Chief of
Police for the Metropolitan Police Department,
TIMOTHY W. SPRINGGS, Director of the District of
Columbia Department of Public Works,
Defendants
______________________
2025-1273, 2025-1274
______________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in No. 1:24-cv-01683-JEB, Chief
Judge James E. Boasberg.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The court has received no response to its February 21,
2025 show cause order regarding whether these appeals
should be dismissed or transferred. We now dismiss.
Case: 25-1273 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 05/19/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

HENNEGHAN v. BOWSER 2
In June 2024, Travis Henneghan and Timothy Henne-
ghan (collectively, “the Henneghans”) filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Colum-
bia against various District of Columbia entities, appear-
ing to allege, inter alia, kidnapping, harassment,
discrimination, and violations of their constitutional rights
when the Henneghans were removed from their father’s
custody in 2012. See Dkt. No. 1 at 4. On November 26,
2024, the Henneghans each filed a notice of appeal seeking
this court’s review of the district court’s minute order di-
recting them to show cause how their allegations give rise
to a federal cause of action.
These appeals do not fall within the limited authority
that Congress granted this court to review decisions of fed-
eral district courts. That jurisdiction extends only to 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 ex-
ceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). While 28 U.S.C. § 1631 authorizes this
court to transfer a case to another appropriate court “if it
is in the interest of justice,” here such transfer would not
be in the interest of justice because, at the time of the no-
tices of appeal, the Henneghans were seeking review of an
order that was clearly interlocutory and not appealable to
any court.1
Accordingly,
1 Although the district court subsequently dis-
missed, the Henneghans did not file a new or amended no-
tice of appeal from that dismissal order or respond to this
court’s show cause order to explain why transfer would be
appropriate under the circumstances.
Case: 25-1273 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 05/19/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

HENNEGHAN v. BOWSER 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeals are dismissed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
May 19, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1273 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 05/19/2025

-- 3 of 3 --