Derrick Mike Allen v. JOHN STEIN, Governor, ROBERT A. GUY, JR., OFC. of Executive Clemency, WAKE COUNTY…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DERRICK MIKE ALLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JOHN STEIN, Governor, ROBERT A. GUY, JR.,
OFC. of Executive Clemency, WAKE COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER, E.A. RUSSO, Raleigh Police
Officer, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, S. ALSTON,
N. HAWKINS, Officer, WAKE COUNTY DETENTION
CENTER MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, ANDERSON,
Lt.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1686
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in No. 1:25-cv-00751-UNA.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Derrick Mike Allen moves for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2, and submits his informal
Case: 25-1686 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 08/12/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

ALLEN v. STEIN 2
opening and reply briefs but has not responded to the
court’s May 23, 2025 show cause order directing him to ad-
dress our jurisdiction. Appellees also have not responded.
Mr. Allen filed a complaint asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims against state and local officials and entities in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
and moved to proceed IFP. On March 20, 2025, the district
court ordered Mr. Allen to provide a certified copy of his
prison trust account statement or to inform the court that
he was no longer in custody. Mr. Allen then filed a notice
of appeal directed to this court from “the Decision of [the]
United States District Judge.” ECF No. 1-2 at 3. His mo-
tion for IFP before the district court remains pending.
This appeal does not fall within the limited authority
that Congress granted this court to review decisions of fed-
eral district courts. That jurisdiction extends only 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 id.
§ 1295(a)(4)(C); or certain damages claims against the
United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” id.
§ 1346(a)(2), see id. § 1295(a)(2). While 28 U.S.C. § 1631
authorizes this court to transfer a case to another appro-
priate court, here such transfer would not be appropriate
at least because Mr. Allen is seeking review of an order that
is clearly interlocutory and not appealable to any court.
C.f. Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S.
844, 845 (1950) (holding that denial of an IFP motion is an
appealable order).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) ECF No. 2 is denied.
Case: 25-1686 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 08/12/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

ALLEN v. STEIN 3
(3) The parties shall bear their own costs.
August 12, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1686 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 08/12/2025

-- 3 of 3 --