NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

______________________ 

PER 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 alternative service, which we deny. Upon review of Mr. Lopez’s 

arguments, read liberally in this pro se appeal, and the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, we determine 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
2 LOPEZ v. US

In 2019, the United States District Court for the Central 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 reinstate. 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 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to 

state a claim. 

Because “no substantial question regarding the outcome 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 expenses 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) (reaffirming that the Court of Federal Claims’ “jurisdiction extends 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 Federal Claims cannot entertain [Mr. Lopez’s] takings claim 

that requires the court to scrutinize the actions of” the Central District of California, the Ninth Circuit, or the 

Case: 22-1426 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2022
LOPEZ v. US 3

Supreme Court. Id. (citation omitted); see Shinnecock Indian 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,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(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 otherwise denied.

(3) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summarily affirmed.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

December 14, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

 

 

Case: 22-1426 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2022