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N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
______________________
2023-1522
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00259-MCW, Senior Judge Mary Ellen Cos-
ter Williams.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Arthur Lopez files a 30-page handwritten opening brief
with an appendix and 20 handwritten pages of additional
argument. Having considered Mr. Lopez’s arguments, the
court summarily affirms.
Mr. Lopez sought $1 billion before the United States
Court of Federal Claims, alleging that prior, adverse
Case: 23-1522 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 10/27/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. US 2
decisions of federal courts demonstrate that the United
States is “operating the taking of [his] property/assets,”
Dkt. No. 1 at 2–3 (Complaint), and a “Breach of Implied
Contracts,” id. at 3. Mr. Lopez also sought an emergency
stay and injunctive relief against state court proceedings.
The Court of Federal Claims denied relief and dismissed
the complaint. Mr. Lopez now appeals.
Because the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment was so
clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial ques-
tion regarding the outcome of this appeal exists, we con-
clude summary affirmance is appropriate. Joshua v.
United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). While
Mr. Lopez attempted to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction
to decide claims under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings
Clause, it is well settled that “the Court of Federal Claims
cannot entertain a taking claim that requires the court to
‘scrutinize the actions of’ another tribunal,” Vereda, Ltda.
v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (ci-
tation omitted). See Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497
F.3d 1303, 1307–08 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “the
Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over”
“[t]akings by state governments”). The Court of Federal
Claims was thus clearly correct in dismissing Mr. Lopez’s
claims predicated on challenging the decisions of other
courts.
We have considered Mr. Lopez’s other arguments in his
brief and find them to be entirely without merit. Among
other things, he now contends that the Court of Federal
Claims has jurisdiction over violations of the Social Secu-
rity Act, but we have made clear “that the Claims Court
has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims to so-
cial security benefits.” Marcos v. United States, 909 F.2d
1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (direct-
ing that claims relating to social security benefits “shall be
brought in [an appropriate federal] district court”).
Accordingly,
Case: 23-1522 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 10/27/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. US 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summar-
ily affirmed.
(2) Mr. Lopez’s opening brief with supplemental pages
is accepted for filing, but any other pending motion is de-
nied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
October 27, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-1522 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 10/27/2023

-- 3 of 3 --