Allen v. Wake County Public Safety Center

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 25-1680
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1680 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 08/12/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DERRICK MIKE ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WAKE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, JOSH STEIN, in his official capacity as Governor of North Carolina, WAKE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, WAKE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE, WAKE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, WAKE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Defendants ______________________

2025-1680 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in No. 1:25-cv-00843-UNA, Judge Christopher R. Cooper. ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER In response to the court’s May 23, 2025 order to show cause, Derrick Mike Allen requests transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Case: 25-1680 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 08/12/2025

Mr. Allen filed a complaint against state and local offi- cials and entities in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On March 27, 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 1. His mo- tion for IFP before the district court remains pending. As Mr. Allen recognizes in his response to this court’s show cause order, this appeal does not fall within the lim- ited authority that Congress granted this court to review decisions of federal district courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a). While Mr. Allen requests transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the only court that could have jurisdiction over this case would be the district court because the district court’s order identified in the appeal is clearly interlocutory and not yet appealable to any court. Cf. 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) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

August 12, 2025 Date