Errol Stewart Tierney, James Ignatius Diamond v. State of California, as an Foreign State, ROB BONTA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ERROL STEWART TIERNEY, JAMES IGNATIUS
DIAMOND,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as an Foreign State, ROB
BONTA, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a political subdi-
visions of the State, CALIFORNIA BAR
ASSOCIATION, political subdivision of the State,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1095
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 5:24-cv-01979-SVW-
PD, Judge Stephen V. Wilson.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Errol Stewart Tierney and James Ignatius Diamond
(collectively, “Tierney”) filed a petition seeking a writ of quo
warranto in the United States District Court for the Cen-
tral District of California against the State of California
and various state entities. Tierney also requested a
Case: 25-1095 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 03/18/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

TIERNEY v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2
temporary restraining order (“TRO”). The district court de-
nied the TRO request and dismissed Tierney’s claims with
prejudice. In view of the subject matter of the underlying
case, this court directed the parties to show cause why this
court has jurisdiction over the appeal. The parties have not
responded.
The court’s jurisdiction to review federal district court
cases 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 Trade-
mark 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). This case is outside of that limited subject
matter jurisdiction. We may transfer to another court, if it
is in the interest of justice, where “the action or appeal
could have been brought at the time it was filed.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631. Here, the court concludes it appropriate to transfer
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The appeal and all its filings are transferred to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
March 18, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-1095 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 03/18/2025

-- 2 of 2 --