Sharon M. James v. United States, Circuit Chief Justice Chagares, Circuit Justice Kent Jordan, Hon.…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SHARON M. JAMES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES, CIRCUIT CHIEF JUSTICE
CHAGARES, CIRCUIT JUSTICE KENT JORDAN,
HON. PATTY SHWARTZ, HON. COLM F.
CONNOLLY, HON. RICHARD G. ANDREWS,
Defendants-Appellees
JOHN CERINO, MARYELLEN NOREIKA,
Defendants
______________________
2026-1439
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in Nos. 1:23-cv-00914-MN and 1:24-
cv-00942-MN, Judge Maryellen Noreika.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Case: 26-1439 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

JAMES v. US 2
Sharon M. James appeals from decisions in two cases
before the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware rejecting her claims for $50,000,000 in damages
due to purported judicial conflicts regarding her private
employment discrimination case. In response to this
court’s show cause order, appellees urge dismissal, while
Ms. James objects and indicates that she believes the ap-
peal should proceed here and not the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of federal
district courts is generally limited to appeals 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).
This appeal falls outside of that limited review authority. 1
Under the circumstances, we see no need to transfer under
28 U.S.C. § 1631 because of Ms. James’s currently-pending
appeal in the Third Circuit, James v. United States, No.
2025-2940 (3d Cir. Oct. 10, 2025).2
Finally, Ms. James appears to challenge the show
cause order on the mistaken belief that it was issued only
by the Clerk of Court. That order was in fact issued by a
judge of this court and merely signed by the Clerk of Court.
See Fed. Cir. R. 45(c) (authorizing the Clerk of Court to sign
1 We likewise lack jurisdiction to consider Ms.
James’s request for recusal or disqualification of Third Cir-
cuit judges.
2 Ms. James appears to request that, in the event we
conclude our jurisdiction is lacking, we transfer to a court
other than the Third Circuit, but she identifies no other ap-
propriate court with jurisdiction, nor are we aware of any.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294.
Case: 26-1439 Document: 27 Page: 2 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

JAMES v. US 3
a document “[f]or the [c]ourt” when directed by a judge or
the court). Similarly, for avoidance of doubt, this order is
issued by a panel of three judges of this court.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
June 11, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-1439 Document: 27 Page: 3 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 3 of 3 --