Arthur Lopez v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ARTHUR LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1860
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-00620-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.
______________________
Decided: March 4, 2025
______________________
ARTHUR L OPEZ, Newport Beach, CA, pro se.
COLLIN T. MATHIAS , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY .
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-1860 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 03/04/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

LOPEZ v. US 2
Arthur Lopez appeals a decision of the United States
Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. Because Mr. Lopez’s claims are outside the
scope of the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, we af-
firm.
I
Mr. Lopez filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims
seeking $300 million in compensation for various alleged
takings. S.A. 3–4.1 Mr. Lopez claims that the government
or government employees took his children and family, and
that a church in California was involved in the scheme. Ap-
pellant’s Opening Br. at 7–8. He also alleges that govern-
ment employees are engaged in illegal activity, Appellant’s
Opening Br. at 7–8, 13, 18, and that “[the government’s]
agents with the Social Security Division have also taken
[his] Disability Benefits for several years[.]” S.A. 10–11.
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Lopez’s
complaint, holding that he had failed to raise a claim
within the court’s jurisdiction. Lopez v. United States, No.
23-620C, 2024 WL 2044156, at *2 (Fed. Cl. May 7, 2024).
Mr. Lopez appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
II
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Trusted Integra-
tion, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. Cir.
2011). Mr. Lopez, as the plaintiff, bears the burden of es-
tablishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2013). Although we give pro se plaintiffs greater latitude in
1 Citations to “S.A.” refer to the Supplemental Appen-
dix submitted by the Defendant-Appellee, the United
States, with its briefing.
Case: 24-1860 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 03/04/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

LOPEZ v. US 3
their pleadings than parties represented by counsel, see Es-
telle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), such leniency does
not result in a “liberal view” of jurisdictional requirements,
Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 812 F.2d 1378, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Tucker Act, the source of the Court of Federal
Claims’ jurisdiction, limits jurisdiction to “claims for
money damages against the United States.” Fisher v.
United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
banc) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491). The Tucker Act alone does
not supply an independent source of action; a plaintiff
“must identify a separate source of substantive law that
creates the right to money damages.” Id. “[T]he absence of
a money-mandating source [is] fatal to the court’s jurisdic-
tion under the Tucker Act.” Id. at 1173.
The Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that it
lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Lopez’s claims. First and fore-
most, it found that “Mr. Lopez’s children and family are not
his property, so the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amend-
ment does not apply to anything that the government or its
agents may have done to separate Mr. Lopez from his fam-
ily.” Lopez, No. 23-620C, at *2. On appeal, Mr. Lopez con-
tests that “numerous state and federal appellate courts
have held child[/]children as property right of parent[.]”
Appellant’s Opening Br. at 22. Mr. Lopez mischaracterizes
the various cases he cites for support. For example, in Dar-
lington v. Turner, the Supreme Court only recited a provi-
sion of the Louisiana Code of 1870 stating that parents
have the right to uses of property belonging to their minor
children. 202 U.S. 195, 235 (1906). There is no case law or
statute which establishes a property right in children.
To the degree that Mr. Lopez’s claims sound in tort law,
the Court of Federal Claims correctly identified that it
lacks jurisdiction over tort actions against the United
States. Lopez, No. 23-620C, at *2; see Brown v. United
States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Court of
Case: 24-1860 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 03/04/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

LOPEZ v. US 4
Federal Claims also lacks jurisdiction over criminal actions
and suits against individual federal officials. See Brown v.
United States, 105 F.3d at 624; Johnson v. United States,
144 Fed. Cl. 578, 582 (2019). Though Mr. Lopez’s 34-page
opening brief describes the crimes he believes federal offi-
cials have committed, the Court of Federal Claims does not
have jurisdiction to hear those claims.
We have also previously informed Mr. Lopez that the
Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction under the Tucker Act
does not extend to claims for social security benefits. See
Lopez v. United States, No. 23-1522, 2023 WL 7096921,
at *1 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Even construing Mr. Lopez’s com-
plaint in the most favorable light, he has failed to carry his
burden to establish that the Court of Federal Claims has
jurisdiction over any of the claims raised in his complaint.
He does not identify an authorized government taking, a
money-mandating source of law, or “a cognizable property
interest of which he was deprived.” Lopez, No. 23-620C, at
*2. The Court of Federal Claims correctly determined that
it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed accordingly.
III
Mr. Lopez appears to express concern that his com-
plaint was dismissed because the judge presiding over his
case was biased against him. Appellant’s Opening Br. at
17.
Mr. Lopez does not specify what relief he seeks on ap-
peal. Assuming that Mr. Lopez seeks a new hearing on the
grounds that judicial bias during the proceedings deprived
him of due process, we have held that an appellant request-
ing such relief must show “a deep-seated favoritism or an-
tagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”
Bieber v. Dep’t of Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (emphasis omitted) (citing Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Mr. Lopez has not satisfied this
requirement. His accusations are purely speculative. He
fails to identify any statement or action by the trial court
Case: 24-1860 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 03/04/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

LOPEZ v. US 5
judge during the handling of his case that demonstrates
bias.
Mr. Lopez also argues that the Court of Federal Claims
abused its discretion in denying his motion to have his case
reassigned to another judge. See Appellant’s Opening Br.
at 17. The Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims con-
sidered Mr. Lopez’s motion to reassign pursuant to
Rule 40.1(c) of the Rules of the United States Court of Fed-
eral Claims (RCFC) and found that his “allegations regard-
ing [the trial court judge’s] alleged bias are conclusory.”
S.A. 16. RCFC 40.1(c) provides that “[t]he chief judge may
reassign any case upon a finding that the transfer is neces-
sary for the efficient administration of justice.”
RCFC 40.1(c). Even assuming the disposition of this mo-
tion is properly before us on appeal, the Chief Judge did not
abuse her discretion in denying Mr. Lopez’s motion. She
was not required by RCFC 40.1(c) to reassign Mr. Lopez’s
case.
IV
We have considered the remaining arguments in
Mr. Lopez’s brief and find them to be without merit. Be-
cause Mr. Lopez’s claims are outside the jurisdiction of the
Court of Federal Claims, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1860 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 03/04/2025

-- 5 of 5 --