Case: 22-2244 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 12/28/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ARTHUR LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2022-2244 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:22-cv-00330-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States moves to summarily affirm the United States Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of Arthur Lopez’s complaint seeking $440,000,000. Mr. Lopez op- poses. For the reasons below, we grant the motion and summarily affirm the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Case: 22-2244 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 12/28/2022

2 LOPEZ v. US

In his pro se complaint, Mr. Lopez notes that he previ- ously brought suit against HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. and for- mer F.B.I. director, James Comey (alleged to be on the bank’s Board of Directors). Appx8; see Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 19-cv-01816 (C.D. Cal.). He alleges that “the defendants including the Supreme Court have re- peatedly ignored Plaintiff’s ‘Taking Claims’ and all other causes of action brought forth seeking Due Relief” by dis- missing his prior district court action relating to “an equity line of credit to be established with HSBC Bank, USA, NA” for a “property related to this case,” where there was alleg- edly a forced sale of the property, Appx8–9; see Mot. at 2– 3; see also Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, No. 21-1002 (S. Ct. Mar. 21, 2022) (denying petition for writ of certiorari). Summary affirmance is appropriate “when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” Joshua v. United States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the Court of Federal Claims properly dis- missed Mr. Lopez’s complaint because, at most, he alleges deprivation of property by a private bank, with a former federal official on its board, and by the federal courts that adjudicated his previous claims. Neither raises a plausible or cognizable claim for relief against the United States. See Welty v. United States, 926 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]ctions of a third party that harm a plaintiff’s private property rights can be attributed to the United States [only] if the third party was acting as the government’s agent or the government’s influence over the third party was coercive rather than merely persuasive.” (cleaned up)); Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he Court of Federal Claims cannot entertain a taking claim that requires the court to ‘scrutinize the ac- tions of’ another tribunal.” (citation omitted)). 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. Case: 22-2244 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 12/28/2022

LOPEZ v. US 3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is summarily affirmed. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

December 28, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court