Court Opinion

ID: 9893507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 15:01:05.209035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:20.326952
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1522    Document: 26     Page: 1   Filed: 10/27/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    ARTHUR LOPEZ,
                    Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

                    UNITED STATES,
                    Defendant-Appellee
                  ______________________

                        2023-1522
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:22-cv-00259-MCW, Senior Judge Mary Ellen Cos-
 ter Williams.
                  ______________________

                      ON MOTION
                  ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                        ORDER
     Arthur Lopez files a 30-page handwritten opening brief
 with an appendix and 20 handwritten pages of additional
 argument. Having considered Mr. Lopez’s arguments, the
 court summarily affirms.
    Mr. Lopez sought $1 billion before the United States
 Court of Federal Claims, alleging that prior, adverse
Case: 23-1522     Document: 26     Page: 2    Filed: 10/27/2023

 2                                                 LOPEZ v. US

 decisions of federal courts demonstrate that the United
 States is “operating the taking of [his] property/assets,”
 Dkt. No. 1 at 2–3 (Complaint), and a “Breach of Implied
 Contracts,” id. at 3. Mr. Lopez also sought an emergency
 stay and injunctive relief against state court proceedings.
 The Court of Federal Claims denied relief and dismissed
 the complaint. Mr. Lopez now appeals.
      Because the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment was so
 clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial ques-
 tion regarding the outcome of this appeal exists, we con-
 clude summary affirmance is appropriate. Joshua v.
 United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). While
 Mr. Lopez attempted to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction
 to decide claims under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings
 Clause, it is well settled that “the Court of Federal Claims
 cannot entertain a taking claim that requires the court to
 ‘scrutinize the actions of’ another tribunal,” Vereda, Ltda.
 v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (ci-
 tation omitted). See Souders v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth., 497
 F.3d 1303, 1307–08 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “the
 Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over”
 “[t]akings by state governments”). The Court of Federal
 Claims was thus clearly correct in dismissing Mr. Lopez’s
 claims predicated on challenging the decisions of other
 courts.
     We have considered Mr. Lopez’s other arguments in his
 brief and find them to be entirely without merit. Among
 other things, he now contends that the Court of Federal
 Claims has jurisdiction over violations of the Social Secu-
 rity Act, but we have made clear “that the Claims Court
 has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over claims to so-
 cial security benefits.” Marcos v. United States, 909 F.2d
 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (direct-
 ing that claims relating to social security benefits “shall be
 brought in [an appropriate federal] district court”).
     Accordingly,
Case: 23-1522    Document: 26     Page: 3   Filed: 10/27/2023

 LOPEZ v. US                                               3

     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
      (1) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summar-
 ily affirmed.
     (2) Mr. Lopez’s opening brief with supplemental pages
 is accepted for filing, but any other pending motion is de-
 nied.
     (3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                        FOR THE COURT

 October 27, 2023                       /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
      Date                              Jarrett B. Perlow
                                        Clerk of Court