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N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
______________________
2023-2431
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00620-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, T ARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Arthur Lopez appeals from the United States Court of
Federal Claims’s order denying his motion to reassign this
case to another judge. Having considered Mr. Lopez’s re-
sponse to this court’s show cause order, we dismiss.
This court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the
Court of Federal Claims is generally limited to appeals
“from a final decision,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3), i.e., one that
“end[s] the litigation on the merits and leave[s] nothing for
Case: 23-2431 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 02/22/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. US 2
the court to do but execute the judgment.” Haggart v.
United States, 943 F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation
omitted). The order denying a motion to reassign did not
end this litigation on the merits.
Nor do the general exceptions to the final judgment
rule apply here. The collateral order doctrine does not ap-
ply because the order can effectively be reviewed on appeal
after final judgment. See In re Preseault, Nos. 628 et al.,
2000 WL 1300418, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2000) (dismiss-
ing as premature); see also Shell Oil Co. v. United States,
672 F.3d 1283, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (reviewing issue on
appeal after final judgment).* The trial court also did not
enter a 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) certification, which permits
appeal from orders that the trial court finds to be control-
ling question of law as to which there is substantial ground
for difference of opinion and that immediate appeal may
materially advance the termination of the litigation.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
* Because a post-judgment appeal is an adequate
remedy for asserting a recusal challenge, mandamus relief
would also not be available to Mr. Lopez here. See Pre-
seault, 2000 WL 1300418, at *2 (denying mandamus relief).
Case: 23-2431 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/22/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. US 3
(2) All pending motions are denied.
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
February 22, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 23-2431 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 02/22/2024

-- 3 of 3 --