Derrick Mike Allen v. United States of America, 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NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, JOSH STEIN, in his official capacity as
Governor of North Carolina, ROY COOPER, in his
official capacity as former Governor of North Caro-
lina, JEFF JACKSON, in his official capacity as
North Carolina Attorney General, JUDITH A.
FORTNEY, THE MAYOR OF RALEIGH, RALEIGH’S
CITY CLERK, RALEIGH’S TOWN/CITY MANAGER,
RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, WAKE COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER
Defendants
______________________
2025-1684
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in No. 1:25-cv-00844-UNA.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
Case: 25-1684 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 08/12/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

ALLEN v. US 2
O R D E R
Derrick Mike Allen moves for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 4, and submits his informal
opening and reply briefs but has not responded to the
court’s May 28, 2025 show cause order directing him to ad-
dress our jurisdiction.
Mr. Allen filed a complaint against the United States
and state and local officials and entities in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, demand-
ing “six sextillion dollars” based on his imprisonment.
Complaint at 5. He also moved the district court for leave
to proceed IFP. On March 26, 2025, the district court or-
dered 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 motion for
IFP before the district court remains pending.
This appeal does 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 id.
§ 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the
United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” id.
§ 1346(a)(2), see id. § 1295(a)(2). While 28 U.S.C. § 1631
authorizes this court to transfer a case to another appro-
priate court, here such transfer would not be appropriate
at least because Mr. Allen is seeking review of an order that
is clearly interlocutory and not appealable to any court.
C.f. 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,
Case: 25-1684 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 08/12/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

ALLEN v. US 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) ECF No. 4 is denied.
(3) The parties shall bear their own costs.
August 12, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1684 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 08/12/2025

-- 3 of 3 --