Arthur Lopez v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ARTHUR LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-2047
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00145-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Arthur Lopez appeals from the judgment of the United
States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his case and
moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 14.
The United States moves to summarily affirm. Mr. Lopez
opposes. We grant summary affirmance.
Case: 25-2047 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 12/10/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

LOPEZ v. US 2
After unsuccessfully pursuing litigation over a private
loan gone bad that resulted in foreclosure on his residence,1
Mr. Lopez brought this action in the Court of Federal
Claims asserting he was entitled to $5 million in damages
based on the government’s “interference,” “obstruction[],”
and “derailing” of that litigation. ECF No. 3 at 21. Specif-
ically, Mr. Lopez’s complaint alleged the government had
“take[n] everything from his possession,” including his
“children and Family,” his social security benefits, his
“property,” and his “assets.” Id. at 15–17. He further as-
serted “U.S. Congress-staff” had taken his property by
“omitting Civil Cause of Action under Theft of Trade Se-
crets statute.” Id. at 14. On August 20, 2025, the Court of
Federal Claims dismissed the complaint and certified un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be in
good faith. Mr. Lopez nevertheless filed this appeal.
Summary affirmance is warranted here. We have ex-
plained to Mr. Lopez that the Court of Federal Claims lacks
jurisdiction over claims for social security benefits, crimi-
nal actions and suits, tort claims based on interference
with prior litigation, and claims that he is entitled to com-
pensation under the Fifth Amendment for the taking of his
children and family. See Lopez v. United States, No. 2024-
1860, 2025 WL 685917, at *1–2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025);
Lopez v. United States, No. 2025-1499 (Fed. Cir. July 16,
2025). The Court of Federal Claims was likewise clearly
correct that Mr. Lopez failed to raise a cognizable takings
claim based on his allegation that Congress omitted a civil
cause of action from the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act
at least because “[t]akings liability must be premised on
affirmative government acts,” St. Bernard Par. Gov’t v.
United States, 887 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
1 See Lopez v. MUFG Holding Corp., No. G061254,
2023 WL 4941972, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2023).
Case: 25-2047 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 12/10/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

LOPEZ v. US 3
We have considered Mr. Lopez’s arguments in opposi-
tion to summary affirmance and find them unpersuasive.
In particular, Mr. Lopez reiterates his argument that the
trial judge should have recused because, when an attorney
in private practice, he had “transacted business dealings
with the . . . United States” in matters unrelated to Mr.
Lopez’s claims. ECF No. 10-1 at 2–3. As previously ex-
plained to Mr. Lopez, to show “that judicial bias during the
proceedings deprived him of due process [he] must show a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair
judgment impossible,” and he has clearly failed to do so
here in this case. Lopez, 2025 WL 685917, at *2.
The court notes that Mr. Lopez has filed numerous
cases with the Court of Federal Claims, and related ap-
peals with this court, each of which have been similarly re-
jected. See, e.g., Lopez, 2025 WL 685917; Lopez, No. 2025-
1499, ECF No. 15; Lopez v. United States, No. 2023-1522,
ECF No. 26 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2023); Lopez v. United
States, No. 2022-2244, ECF No. 13 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2022);
Lopez v. United States, No. 2022-1426, ECF No. 20 (Fed.
Cir. Dec. 14, 2022). Mr. Lopez is now specifically warned
that if he continues to file appeals with this court that are
wholly meritless, the court may impose monetary and/or
non-monetary sanctions. Cf. In re Amend. to Rule 39, 500
U.S. 13, 13 (1991) (“It is vital that the right to file in forma
pauperis not be encumbered by those who would abuse the
integrity of our process by frivolous filings[.]”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is denied.
(2) The United States’s motion is granted. The judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is sum-
marily affirmed.
Case: 25-2047 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 12/10/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

LOPEZ v. US 4
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
December 10, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-2047 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 12/10/2025

-- 4 of 4 --