Arthur Lopez v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ARTHUR LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2244
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00330-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the
United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Arthur
Lopez’s complaint seeking $440,000,000. Mr. Lopez op-
poses. For the reasons below, we grant the motion and
summarily affirm the judgment of the Court of Federal
Claims.
Case: 22-2244 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 12/28/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. US 2
In his pro se complaint, Mr. Lopez notes that he previ-
ously brought suit against HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. and for-
mer F.B.I. director, James Comey (alleged to be on the
bank’s Board of Directors). Appx8; see Lopez v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A., No. 19-cv-01816 (C.D. Cal.). He alleges
that “the defendants including the Supreme Court have re-
peatedly ignored Plaintiff’s ‘Taking Claims’ and all other
causes of action brought forth seeking Due Relief” by dis-
missing his prior district court action relating to “an equity
line of credit to be established with HSBC Bank, USA, NA”
for a “property related to this case,” where there was alleg-
edly a forced sale of the property, Appx8–9; see Mot. at 2–
3; see also Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 21-1002 (S. Ct.
Mar. 21, 2022) (denying petition for writ of certiorari).
Summary affirmance is appropriate “when the position
of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no
substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal
exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Here, the Court of Federal Claims properly dis-
missed Mr. Lopez’s complaint because, at most, he alleges
deprivation of property by a private bank, with a former
federal official on its board, and by the federal courts that
adjudicated his previous claims. Neither raises a plausible
or cognizable claim for relief against the United States. See
Welty v. United States, 926 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(“[A]ctions of a third party that harm a plaintiff’s private
property rights can be attributed to the United States
[only] if the third party was acting as the government’s
agent or the government’s influence over the third party
was coercive rather than merely persuasive.” (cleaned up));
Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims cannot entertain
a taking claim that requires the court to ‘scrutinize the ac-
tions of’ another tribunal.” (citation omitted)).
We have considered Mr. Lopez’s other arguments; they
raise no cognizable, non-frivolous basis for finding error in
the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment.
Case: 22-2244 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 12/28/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. US 3
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted. The judgment of the Court
of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
December 28, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-2244 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 12/28/2022

-- 3 of 3 --