Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1996
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:11-cv-00954-DMG-
JCG, Judge Dolly M. Gee.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The United States moves to dismiss Ricardo Jose Cal-
deron Lopez’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Calderon
Lopez has not filed a response.
Mr. Calderon Lopez filed the underlying petition for
writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, which transferred the
Case: 25-1996 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

CALDERON LOPEZ v. US 2
matter to another district court in February 2011. Mr. Cal-
deron Lopez appealed to the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed in April 2011
for lack of jurisdiction. In July 2025, Mr. Calderon Lopez
filed two more notices of appeal at the Central District of
California, both directed to this court.1
As we have repeatedly informed Mr. Calderon Lopez,2
this court’s jurisdiction over district court decisions is lim-
ited to cases involving 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); and cases involving certain damages
claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in
amount,” id. § 1346(a)(2), see id. § 1295(a)(2). This case is
clearly outside of that jurisdiction. And under the circum-
stances, we see no basis to transfer to another court.
Mr. Calderon Lopez is specifically warned that he may
be sanctioned, including the imposition of monetary and
non-monetary penalties, if he files another notice of appeal
directed to this court that involves a case that does not
1 The first notice indicates appeal from an order
dated “07/19/2025,” which is not the date of any order en-
tered in that court but rather is the date the notice was
filed. The second notice indicates appeal from an order
dated “02/01/2011,” which also is not the date of any order
entered in that court but rather is the date Mr. Calderon
Lopez filed the habeas petition.
2 See, e.g., Calderon Lopez v. Gumushyan, No. 2025-
1765, ECF No. 10 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2025); Calderon Lopez
v. Off. of the Sec’y of State, No. 2024-1964, ECF No. 4 (Fed.
Cir. July 23, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. O’Malley, No. 2025-
1698, ECF No. 22 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2024); In re Calderon
Lopez, No. 2023-133, ECF No. 23 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023).
Case: 25-1996 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

CALDERON LOPEZ v. US 3
plausibly fall within this court’s subject matter jurisdic-
tion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is
dismissed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
September 30, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1996 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 09/30/2025

-- 3 of 3 --