Bexar County v. ROWLAND J. MARTIN, JR., as Administrator

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BEXAR COUNTY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v.
ROWLAND J. MARTIN, JR., as Administrator and
Individually as Heir to the Estate of Johnnie Mae
King,
Defendant-Appellant
______________________
2022-2211
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas in No. 5:22-cv-00374-XR, Judge
Xavier Rodriguez.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Appellees move to dismiss this appeal for lack of juris-
diction. Rowland J. Martin, Jr. opposes the motion.
This appeal stems from a 2014 Texas state court action
filed by state tax authorities against Mr. Martin regarding
a dispute over real property in Bexar County, Texas. In
Case: 22-2211 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 11/23/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

BEXAR COUNTY v. MARTIN 2
April 2022, Mr. Martin removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
The district court granted appellees’ motion to remand for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied Mr. Martin’s mo-
tion for reconsideration, and remanded the case to state
court. This appeal followed.
We lack jurisdiction over this appeal. This court gen-
erally has jurisdiction only over district court cases arising
under the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil ac-
tions on review to the district court from the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, § 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain
cases against the United States for claims “not exceeding
$10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(2). Although Mr. Martin’s notice of appeal refer-
ences § 1346, that provision is not applicable here because
the United States is not a party to this action. Nor can
jurisdiction on this matter be predicated on the “Big Tucker
Act,” ECF No. 1-2, because that provision applies only to
claims presented to the United States Court of Federal
Claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). Finally, to the extent
that Mr. Martin’s response argues that this court has juris-
diction in this case based on its jurisdiction over his sepa-
rate appeal from a judgment of the United States Court of
Federal Claims, we must reject that argument.
When we lack jurisdiction, we will transfer the case to
another court where the case “could have been brought at
the time it was filed,” “if it is in the interest of justice.” 28
U.S.C. § 1631. Here, however, Mr. Martin already filed an
appeal with the appropriate regional circuit, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Appeal
No. 22-50718.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
Case: 22-2211 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 11/23/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

BEXAR COUNTY v. MARTIN 3
November 23, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 23, 2022
Case: 22-2211 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 11/23/2022

-- 3 of 3 --