Court Opinion

ID: 9946176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 16:02:31.465746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:37.091654
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2431     Document: 11      Page: 1    Filed: 02/22/2024

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
                        Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
                          ORDER
     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: 2   Filed: 02/22/2024

 2                                                LOPEZ v. US

 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,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (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: 3   Filed: 02/22/2024

 LOPEZ v. US                                               3

     (2) All pending motions are denied.
     (3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                FOR THE COURT

 February 22, 2024
       Date