Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Buess v. U.S., No. 11-1318 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2011)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 11-1318
Decided
July 7, 2011
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
3 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Gnited States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

DAVID LEE BUESS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

AND

RODNEY DALE CLASS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vv

UNITED STATES AND INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE, .

Defendants-Appellees,

AND

STATE OF OHIO,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

GASTON COUNTY TAX DEPARTMENT,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

REGINALD J. ROUTSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

2BUESS v. US 2

2011-1318

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case no. 09-CV-2151, Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion
Figure on page 2 of the opinion

ORDER

The United States and the Internal Revenue Service (US) move to dismiss David Lee Buess's and Redney Dale Class’s (Buess) appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia essentially includes claims of tax fraud against the United States. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. After dismissal, Buess filed a notice of appeal, identifying this court, and the appeal was docketed. It appears that the appeal was also docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

This is a court of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Based on our review, it is clear that the district court's jurisdiction did not arise in whole or in part under the laws governing this court's appellate jurisdiction. In these circumstances, we determine that it is unnecessary to transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, because that court has already docketed the appeal in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. §3 3 BUESS v. US

Figure on page 3 of the opinion

1631 (court may, if it is in the "interest of justice," transfer an action to a court “in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed”).

Accordingly, It Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs in this appeal.

For THE CourRT JUL 720m /s! Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: David Lee Buess FILED

ss 8S; COURT OF APPEALS FOR Rodney Dale Cla George A. McAndrews, Esq. ERAL CIRCUIT John Schumann, Esq. JUL 07 2011 Justin Michael Flint, Esq. Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Esq. JAN Aaron D. Epstein, Esq. Hite s24 ISSUED AS AMANDaTE: _ JUL! 2011

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Buess v. U.S., No. 11-1318 (Fed. Cir. July 7, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-11-1318-20110707
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-1318-20110707

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.