EVERIST v. AGRICULTURE , No. 14-1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-1358 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 08/05/2014 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DAVID D. EVERIST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE, DONNA MICKLEY, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, DAYNE BARRON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S., AND DOUGLAS FONG, Defendants-Appellees, AND CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON, MARK D. CLARKE, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, AND OWEN M. PANNER, Defendants. ______________________ 2014-1358 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in No. 1:14-cv-00199-CL, Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clark. ______________________ PER CURIAM. ORDER Case: 14-1358 Document: 25 2 Page: 2 EVERIST Filed: 08/05/2014 v. AGRICULTURE In light of David D. Everist s response to this court s show cause order, we consider whether this appeal should be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Everist appeals a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon that dismissed his complaint appearing to allege violations under the Federal Land Policy Management Act and Executive Order No. 12630. While this court s jurisdiction extends to Little Tucker Act claims for no more than $10,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2), here to the extent that Everist s complaint can be read as raising such a claim, it appears that he asked for more than the threshold amount. Because this case does not fall within our jurisdiction, the court will transfer the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. (2) All other pending motions are transferred to the Ninth Circuit. FOR THE COURT /s/ Daniel E. O Toole Daniel E. O Toole Clerk of Court s24

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.