Arthur Lopez v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ARTHUR LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1499
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-01742-LAS, Senior Judge Loren A. Smith.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Arthur Lopez appeals from the judgment of the United
States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his case for lack
of jurisdiction. For the reasons provided herein, we grant
the United States’s motion to summarily affirm.
The present litigation, wherein Mr. Lopez alleges col-
lusion between the United States and the owner and asso-
ciated entities of the Irvine Company LLC, followed
Case: 25-1499 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

LOPEZ v. US 2
previous litigation in federal district court in which Mr.
Lopez had alleged Irvine and its associated apartment
buildings in Newport Beach, California discriminated
against him; violated the Fair Housing Act; and committed
unfair business practices arising out of the termination of
his lease. See Lopez v. Irvine Company LLC, No. 8:18-cv-
00093 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2018), Dkt. No. 25.
Several years after the district court dismissed Mr.
Lopez’s complaint and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit dismissed his appeal, Mr. Lopez
brought this suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging
that the United States “stalked Plaintiff to Harass to the
point of Taking his asset(s) property-claims related to the
Irvine Company for their standard operating of discrimina-
tion, segregation, fraud and more unlawfulness that led to
depriving Plaintiff of Newport Beach Housing;” including
creating “delays[,] distractions[,] and impediments” to his
“legal research” and engaging in various criminal activi-
ties, including entrapment. ECF No. 3 at 10–17. He also
asked to “take judicial notice that the Social Security De-
partment has participated in these Takings schemes
against Plaintiff having deprived Social Security Disability
Benefits for many years[.]” Id. at 18. The Court of Federal
Claims granted the government’s motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal followed.
The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Federal Claims to claims for money
damages against the United States based on sources of sub-
stantive law that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation by the Federal Government.” United States
v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287, 290 (2009). It also ex-
pressly omits from the Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdic-
tion claims that “sound[] in tort.” § 1491(a)(1). Moreover,
consistent with its “gap-filling role,” the Tucker Act does
not apply in those circumstances in which Congress has
provided “a precisely drawn, detailed statute” that
Case: 25-1499 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

LOPEZ v. US 3
“contains its own judicial remedies.” United States v.
Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 12–13 (2012).
Here, the Court of Federal Claims determined that it
did not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Lopez’s claims. We
find that summary affirmance is appropriate because that
court’s determination is so clearly correct. See Joshua v.
United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Mr.
Lopez’s claims of harassment, stalking, and interference
with his efforts to sue the Irvine Company sound in tort
and thus lie outside the Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdic-
tion. “We have also previously informed Mr. Lopez that the
Court of Federal Claims’[s] jurisdiction under the Tucker
Act does not extend to claims for social security benefits,”
Lopez v. United States, No. 24-1860, 2025 WL 685917, at
*2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025) (citing Lopez v. United States,
No. 23-1522, 2023 WL 7096921, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27,
2023)); see Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471
(Fed. Cir. 1990), or “criminal actions and suits,” Lopez,
2025 WL 685917, at *2; see Joshua, 17 F.3d at 379.
We have considered Mr. Lopez’s arguments in opposi-
tion to summary affirmance and find them unpersuasive.
Mr. Lopez asserts that he “has uncovered . . . very signifi-
cant ‘conflict of interest’ Standard Operating Procedures
within the Trial Court” that includes “the repeated occur-
rence of assigning bias judicial officers to [his] cases,” ECF
No. 11-1 at 3, and alleges that the trial judge’s denial of his
request to recuse was an “apparent retaliatory act [that]
also negated [his] request for leave to amend complaint to
possibly add legal theor[ie]s, facts, claims.” Id. at 4. But,
as this court previously explained to Mr. Lopez, to show
“that judicial bias during the proceedings deprived him of
due process [he] must show a deep-seated favoritism or an-
tagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”
Lopez, 2025 WL 685917, at *2 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). As with his prior similar attempts,
here again, he “has not satisfied this requirement,” as “[h]is
accusations are purely speculative.” Id.
Case: 25-1499 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

LOPEZ v. US 4
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The United States’s motion is granted. The judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is sum-
marily affirmed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
July 16, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1499 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 07/16/2025

-- 4 of 4 --