In re: LENA MARIE LINDBERG v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534-35 1999 . Thus, “the

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: LENA MARIE LINDBERG,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-126
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in No. 6:21-
cv-01372-RBD-GJK, Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Lena Marie Lindberg petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking, inter alia, to “command the Attorney General to
commence Civil RICO Actions,” ECF No. 2 at 23, and to
direct Florida state courts, federal district courts, and the
United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Elev-
enth Circuits to take certain actions in her prior cases. She
also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The All Writs Act provides that federal courts “may is-
sue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respec-
tive jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute
Case: 23-126 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2023

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE: LINDBERG 2
makes clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of juris-
diction, see Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35
(1999). Thus, “the petitioner must initially show that the
action sought to be corrected by mandamus is within this
court’s statutorily defined subject matter jurisdiction.”
Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp., 710 F.2d
1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Ms. Lindberg has not identified any case that would
eventually be subject to this court’s jurisdiction on appeal.
Our review authority over appeals from United States dis-
trict courts is generally limited to certain cases involving
patent law matters, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1295(a)(4)(C),
or certain claims against the United States “not exceeding
$10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. §
1295(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). Ms. Lindberg’s petition
does not raise any matter within that limited jurisdiction.
Nor can we say it would be in the interest of justice to
transfer her petition to another court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition is dismissed.
(2) The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied
as moot.
May 18, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-126 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2023

-- 2 of 2 --