Case: 25-151 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 10/28/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Star- light Consulting Services, dba Starlight Entertain- ment Enterprises, Inc., dba Starlight Music Management, Inc., Petitioner ______________________ 2025-151 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-01073-KCD, Judge Kathryn C. Davis. ______________________ ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________ PER CURIAM.

ORDER Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez filed a complaint at the United States Court of Federal Claims along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On July 24, 2025, the court denied the IFP motion because of his history of filing complaints that were frivolous or filed in a court that lacked jurisdiction and because the current complaint “suf- fers from similar deficiencies.” ECF No. 2 at 15. Mr. Lopez moved for reconsideration, which the court denied on Au- gust 28, 2025. On September 5, 2025, he filed this petition Case: 25-151 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 10/28/2025

2 IN RE LOPEZ

attaching a copy of the trial court’s August 28, 2025 order requiring him to pay the filing fee.

Orders denying IFP status are generally immediately appealable. See Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950). Because Mr. Lopez’s peti- tion, liberally construed, can be understood as challenging the trial court’s denial of IFP status, we construe it as a timely notice of appeal, and thus mandamus relief is not available. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (holding that a party seek- ing a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other adequate means of attaining the relief, such as by appeal); Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1953) (noting “whatever may be done without the writ may not be done with it”).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied. ECF No. 2 is treated as a timely notice of appeal consistent with Rule 4(d) of the Fed- eral Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Clerk of Court shall transfer this matter to the court’s normal appeals docket. (2) The Clerk of Court shall also transmit Mr. Lopez’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and a copy of this order to the normal appeals docket.

Case: 25-151 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 10/28/2025

IN RE LOPEZ 3

(3) Within 40 days of the date of docketing of this mat- ter on the court’s regular docket, the parties are directed to address whether this appeal should be dismissed as frivo- lous or whether the judgment of the trial court should be summarily affirmed. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (providing that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious”). The pro- ceedings in the appeal are otherwise stayed.

FOR THE COURT

October 28, 2025 Date