Derrick Mike Allen v. Wake County Public Safety Center, State of North Carolina, Josh Stein

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DERRICK MIKE ALLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, STATE
OF NORTH CAROLINA, JOSH STEIN, in his official
capacity as Governor of North Carolina, WAKE
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, WAKE
COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE, WAKE COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER, WAKE COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,
Defendants
______________________
2025-1680
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in No. 1:25-cv-00843-UNA, Judge
Christopher R. Cooper.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
In response to the court’s May 23, 2025 order to show
cause, Derrick Mike Allen requests transfer to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Case: 25-1680 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 08/12/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

ALLEN v. WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER 2
Mr. Allen filed a complaint against state and local offi-
cials and entities in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and moved for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). On March 27, 2025, the district
court ordered Mr. Allen to provide a certified copy of his
prison trust account statement or to inform the court that
he was no longer in custody. Mr. Allen then filed a notice
of appeal directed to this court from “the decision of [the]
United States District Judge,” ECF No. 1-2 at 1. His mo-
tion for IFP before the district court remains pending.
As Mr. Allen recognizes in his response to this court’s
show cause order, this appeal does not fall within the lim-
ited authority that Congress granted this court to review
decisions of federal district courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a).
While Mr. Allen requests transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631,
the only court that could have jurisdiction over this case
would be the district court because the district court’s order
identified in the appeal is clearly interlocutory and not yet
appealable to any court. Cf. Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N.
Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (holding that denial
of an IFP motion is an appealable order).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
August 12, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1680 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 08/12/2025

-- 2 of 2 --