NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TODD SCHAEFFER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-2144

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:20-cv-01498-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The United States moves to dismiss this appeal as untimely filed. Todd Schaeffer opposes and, among other 

things, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed 

Mr. Schaeffer’s complaint, entered judgment in August 

2021, and denied reconsideration on December 29, 2021. 

On January 7, 2022, the court issued an anti-filing order, 

Case: 22-2144 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 11/17/2022
2 SCHAEFFER v. US

directing its Clerk’s Office “to reject any future filings other 

than a properly served notice of appeal.” Schaeffer v. 

United States, No. 1:20-cv-01498-RTH (Fed. Cl. Jan. 7, 

2022), ECF No. 31. The Court of Federal Claims’ docket 

reflects that the anti-filing order has been invoked twice: 

first, on January 10, 2022, and second, on August 11, 2022, 

the latter instance returning as unfiled Mr. Schaeffer’s documents entitled “Relief” and “Document ZZZZ” received on 

that same day. ECF No. 1-2 at 6. On August 17, 2022, Mr. 

Schaeffer filed a notice of appeal from the “order filed January 7, 2022, directing the office to reject plaintiff’s filings 

without proper notice of appeal,” purportedly entered on 

“August 16, 2022.” ECF No. 1-2 at 1.

We lack jurisdiction over an appeal from the trial 

court’s judgment or the January 7, 2022, anti-filing order 

because an appeal of those decisions is untimely. A notice 

of appeal from the Court of Federal Claims must be filed 

within 60 days of the entry of judgment or order from which 

the appeal is taken. See 28 U.S.C. § 2522; 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2107(b). We have held that deadline to be a jurisdictional 

rule imposed by Congress with the intent of denying this 

court jurisdiction once the filing window has closed. See 

Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 

2008); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007). 

The notice of appeal here was filed more than 60 days from 

the date of issuance of those rulings and is therefore untimely.* 

* The court notes Mr. Schaeffer’s January 10, 2022, 

submission (rejected from filing the same day) cannot reasonably be construed as a notice of appeal from the January 7, 2022, order because he expressly requested relief 

from the Court of Federal Claims, see, e.g., ECF No. 10-4 at 

152, and does not reasonably indicate an intent to appeal 

to this court, as would be required of a notice of appeal by

Rule 3(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Case: 22-2144 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 11/17/2022
SCHAEFFER v. US 3

To the extent Mr. Schaeffer seeks review of the trial 

court’s August 11, 2022, action refusing to accept his submissions per the anti-filing order, we dismiss his appeal as 

frivolous. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 

490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) 

(“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court 

determines that . . . the . . . appeal is frivolous[.]”). Mr. 

Schaeffer’s various filings raise no cognizable argument as 

to why his submission should have been docketed after 

judgment had already been entered in his case and in light 

of the anti-filing order. 

Lastly, we address Mr. Schaeffer’s assertions of confidentiality in his submissions to this court. Mr. Schaeffer

contends that the entirety of ECF Nos. 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 10-1, 

10-2, 10-3, and 10-4 should be treated as confidential, because the “[m]aterials were filed sealed with the agency 

and in the trial court” and that confidentiality is necessary 

to “protect the reputations of parties.” ECF No. 13 at 2. On 

September 10, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims expressly 

ordered all of Mr. Schaeffer’s filings be unsealed, ECF No. 

10-3 at 28, and we see no justification for sealing his materials here. See In re Violation of Rule 28(d), 635 F.3d 1352, 

1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (recognizing a strong presumption in 

favor of public access to appellate court proceedings).

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The government’s motion is granted to the extent 

that this appeal is dismissed. 

(2) All other motions are denied.

(3) ECF Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10, and 13 are unsealed. 

Case: 22-2144 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 11/17/2022
4 SCHAEFFER v. US

 (4) Each side shall bear its own costs.

November 17, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 17, 2022

Case: 22-2144 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 11/17/2022