Back to Blog
CAFC-DCTJune 29, 2026·26-1358·Transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

FULKERSON v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

District Court

Holding

The Federal Circuit held that Fulkerson failed to show the appeal fell within the court’s limited district-court appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Rather than dismiss, the court transferred the appeal and all filings to the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Why It Matters

The order is a reminder that naming the Federal Circuit or referencing MSPB-related history does not create Federal Circuit jurisdiction over a district-court appeal lacking a patent, qualifying PTO-review, or other statutory basis.

Full Summary

FULKERSON v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [ORDER] The Federal Circuit held that Fulkerson failed to show the appeal fell within the court’s limited district-court appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Rather than dismiss, the court transferred the appeal and all filings to the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The order is a reminder that naming the Federal Circuit or referencing MSPB-related history does not create Federal Circuit jurisdiction over a district-court appeal lacking a patent, qualifying PTO-review, or other statutory basis. Transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The underlying complaint sought damages for alleged constitutional and civil-rights violations tied to litigation involving Fulkerson’s prior Social Security Administration employment. Fulkerson invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), arguing that his complaint referenced prior MSPB appeals. The court explained that this was an appeal from a district-court dismissal, and Fulkerson did not show a basis for Federal Circuit jurisdiction under § 1295. The court chose transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 rather than dismissal on the merits. The order is nonprecedential. standing / jurisdiction remand non-precedential damages standing / jurisdiction remand non-precedential damages standing / jurisdiction remand non-precedential

Key Points

  • The underlying complaint sought damages for alleged constitutional and civil-rights violations tied to litigation involving Fulkerson’s prior Social Security Administration employment.
  • Fulkerson invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), arguing that his complaint referenced prior MSPB appeals.
  • The court explained that this was an appeal from a district-court dismissal, and Fulkerson did not show a basis for Federal Circuit jurisdiction under § 1295.
  • The court chose transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 rather than dismissal on the merits.
  • The order is nonprecedential.
standing / jurisdictionremandnon-precedentialdamages

More on this topic