Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez, dba Starlight Consulting Services, STARLIGHT… v. Office of the Secretary of State, Unknown State of California Government Personnel,…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Starlight
Consulting Services, STARLIGHT
ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
STARLIGHT MUSIC MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
UNKNOWN STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL, Servicing the State
Agencies-Franchise Tax Board,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2024-1964
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 5:17-cv-02886-BLF,
Judge Beth Labson Freeman.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
In 2017, Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez brought suit
against appellees in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, various civil rights and antitrust violations and
Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

CALDERON LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 2
seeking $200,000 in damages. On November 1, 2018, the
district court dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing
fee. On June 13, 2024, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed a notice of
appeal from a decision entered “11/01/2018” in the district
court action. The notice of appeal was transmitted to this
court, and it appears an appeal from the same district court
decision is also pending in the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Ninth Circuit. See Calderon-Lopez v. Off. of
the Cal. Sec’y of State, No. 24-3808 (9th Cir. June 20, 2024).
As this court has informed Mr. Calderon Lopez,1 our
jurisdiction to review district court decisions is generally
limited 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
§ 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages
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).
Mr. Calderon Lopez’s case does not fall within that juris-
diction. We conclude that dismissal, rather than transfer,
is appropriate at least because an appeal from the same
district court action is also pending in the Ninth Circuit.
28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
1 See In re Calderon Lopez, Appeal No. 2023-133,
ECF No. 23 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023); Calderon Lopez v.
O’Malley, Appeal No. 2024-1698, ECF No. 7 (Fed. Cir.
Apr. 24, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. United States, Appeal No.
2024-1947, ECF No. 4 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2024).
Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

CALDERON LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 3
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 23, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2024

-- 3 of 3 --