Irina Collier, and for all similarly situated v. Donald J. Trump, Governor of Ca Newsome, Governor of Fl, Morgan Chase Bank,…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IRINA COLLIER, and for all similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, GOVERNOR OF CA
NEWSOME, GOVERNOR OF FL, MORGAN CHASE
BANK, COLLIER-GARBERS CHURCH, MENSA INC.
INTERNATIONAL, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY,
MORMON CHURCH, PRESIDENT OF SANDFORD,
CHARLES WADE COLLIER,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2023-2420
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in No. 3:23-cv-01248-DMS-
DDL, Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Irina Collier filed this suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against
Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 02/21/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

COLLIER v. TRUMP 2
various individuals and entities, asserting, among other
things, a cause of action under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court found
Ms. Collier’s action frivolous and denied her motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. In particular, the dis-
trict court determined that “[n]ot only does [the complaint]
lack an arguable basis in law or fact, nearly the same exact
[c]omplaint has been dismissed in this Court numerous
times.” Dkt. 6 at 2; see also id. at 3 (“Plaintiff’s frivolous
filings have placed a great burden on this Court, and courts
across the country.”).
Ms. Collier then filed a notice of appeal that was trans-
mitted to this court. Because it appeared we lack jurisdic-
tion, we directed the parties to show cause why this case
should not be transferred or dismissed. Ms. Collier re-
sponded opposing dismissal, ECF No. 15, and separately
moved to transfer “to the [multidistrict litigation (MDL)]
court in Washington D.C.” due to “the newly uncovered
conflict of interest.” ECF No. 16 at 1; see also ECF No. 20
(seeking the same relief). She moved to transfer both this
appeal and Appeal No. 2023-2052 “to the MDL court.” Id.
In Appeal No. 2023-2052, this court recently denied her pe-
tition for panel rehearing of the court’s earlier order sum-
marily affirming the judgment of the United States Court
of Federal Claims, denied a similar motion to consolidate
her two appeals and transfer to an MDL panel, and issued
mandate on February 7, 2024. ECF Nos. 24, 28, 29 in Ap-
peal No. 2023-2052.
This appeal does not fall within the limited authority
that Congress granted this court to review decisions of fed-
eral district courts. That jurisdiction generally extends 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
§1295(a)(4)(C); or 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); 28 U.S.C.
Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 02/21/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

COLLIER v. TRUMP 3
§ 1292(c)(1). Ms. Collier’s complaint raises none of those
types of claims. Nor do we find it to be in the “interest of
justice” to transfer this case, which is frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631; Britell v. United States, 318 F.3d 70, 75 (1st Cir.
2003) (“[I]t is in the interest of justice to dismiss [a frivolous
appeal] rather than to keep it on life support (with the in-
evitable result that the transferee court will pull the plug).”
(citation omitted)).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
February 21, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 23-2420 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 02/21/2024

-- 3 of 3 --