Case: 22-1426 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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. ORDER 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 alter- native service, which we deny. Upon review of Mr. Lopez’s arguments, read liberally in this pro se appeal, and the de- cision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, we de- termine that this case is appropriate for summary affirmance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Case: 22-1426 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2022

2 LOPEZ v. US

In 2019, the United States District Court for the Cen- tral 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 re- instate. 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 dis- missed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Because “no substantial question regarding the out- come 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 ex- penses 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) (reaf- firming that the Court of Federal Claims’ “jurisdiction ex- tends 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 Fed- eral Claims cannot entertain [Mr. Lopez’s] takings claim that requires the court to scrutinize the actions of” the Cen- tral District of California, the Ninth Circuit, or the Case: 22-1426 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2022

LOPEZ v. US 3

Supreme Court. Id. (citation omitted); see Shinnecock In- dian 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 oth- erwise denied. (3) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment is summar- ily affirmed. (4) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

December 14, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court