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N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
______________________
2022-1426
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01166-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Arthur Lopez files his opening brief and moves for
leave to file supplemental pages to his opening brief and
appendix, which we grant. Mr. Lopez also moves for alter-
native service, which we deny. Upon review of Mr. Lopez’s
arguments, read liberally in this pro se appeal, and the de-
cision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, we de-
termine that this case is appropriate for summary
affirmance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Case: 22-1426 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. US 2
In 2019, the United States District Court for the Cen-
tral District of California dismissed Mr. Lopez’s suit
against the Superior Court of California. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed his
appeal for failure to prosecute and denied his motion to re-
instate. After the United States Supreme Court denied his
petition for writ of certiorari as untimely, Mr. Lopez
brought this suit at the Court of Federal Claims seeking
$550,000,000. Mr. Lopez alleged a breach of contract by
the Supreme Court’s acceptance of his filing fee without
docketing his petition and alleged that the Ninth Circuit
mishandled his appeal. The Court of Federal Claims dis-
missed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim.
Because “no substantial question regarding the out-
come of the appeal exists,” we summarily affirm. Joshua
v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The
Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that “the mere
payment of a filing fee and other litigation-related ex-
penses does not create a contract between a plaintiff and
the United States,” Coleman v. United States, 635 F. App’x
875, 878 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). See Hercules
Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423–24 (1996) (reaf-
firming that the Court of Federal Claims’ “jurisdiction ex-
tends only to contracts either express or implied in fact,”
which is one “founded upon a meeting of minds” (citation
omitted)).
Mr. Lopez fares no better in characterizing the alleged
failures to provide “Constitutionally guaranteed processes”
in his prior case, Dkt. No. 16 at 12, as an illegal exaction.
“Article III forbids the Court of Federal Claims, an Article I
tribunal, from reviewing the actions of an Article III court,”
Petro-Hunt, LLC v. United States, 862 F.3d 1370, 1385
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Thus, “the Court of Fed-
eral Claims cannot entertain [Mr. Lopez’s] takings claim
that requires the court to scrutinize the actions of” the Cen-
tral District of California, the Ninth Circuit, or the
Case: 22-1426 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

LOPEZ v. US 3
Supreme Court. Id. (citation omitted); see Shinnecock In-
dian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
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.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) ECF No. 16 is accepted for filing as Mr. Lopez’s
opening brief and appendix.
(2) ECF No. 17 is granted to the extent that pages 4
to 27 of ECF No. 17 are accepted as supplemental pages to
Mr. Lopez’s opening brief and appendix. The motion is oth-
erwise denied.
(3) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summar-
ily affirmed.
(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
December 14, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-1426 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2022

-- 3 of 3 --