Case: 22-2137 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 10/21/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2137
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:20-cv-00133-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The United States moves to waive the requirements of
Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to dismiss for lack of juris-
diction. Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez opposes the motion and
moves to “Set as Aside & reverse unsupported order &
judgement . . . as-clearly erroneous . . . expediting the ap-
pellant-reinstatement of Gov. benefits,” ECF No. 9 at 4.
Case: 22-2137 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 10/21/2022
2 LOPEZ v. US
Mr. Lopez filed the present action at the United States
Court of Federal Claims, asserting claims under the Fed-
eral Tort Claims Act. The court entered judgment on
July 10, 2020, dismissing the action, agreeing with the gov-
ernment that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
More than two years later, on August 9, 2022, the Court of
Federal Claims received a submission from Mr. Lopez en-
titled “Motion to Intervene,” which the court returned to
him as unfiled on August 11, 2022. The next day, Mr.
Lopez filed a notice of appeal from a judgment purportedly
entered on “08/12/2022.”
We agree with the government that we do not have ju-
risdiction to hear any appeal from the Court of Federal
Claims’ July 10, 2020, judgment because an appeal from
that judgment would be untimely. To be timely, a notice of
appeal must be received by the Court of Federal Claims
within 60 days of the entry of judgment, see
28 U.S.C.
§ 2522;
28 U.S.C. § 2107. The timely filing of a notice of
appeal from the Court of Federal Claims to this court is a
jurisdictional requirement that is not subject to equitable
exception. See Marandola v. United States,
518 F.3d 913,
914 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Mr. Lopez’s notice of appeal
was filed over two years after entry of the July 10, 2020,
judgment, which was clearly untimely.
Mr. Lopez’s brief also does not clearly challenge the Au-
gust 11, 2022, order returning his “Motion to Intervene”
unfiled. In any event, it was well within the Court of Fed-
eral Claims’ authority to refuse to accept Mr. Lopez’s sub-
mission filed long after his case had been closed. See Davis
v. Adler, 765 F. App’x 400, 401 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Ready
Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.,
627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir.
2010) and Bias v. Moynihan,
508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir.
2007)); Gill v. Wells, 610 F. App’x 809, 812 (11th Cir. 2015)
(citing Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc.,
750 F.3d 1253, 1262
(11th Cir. 2014)). Nor does Mr. Lopez assert any other non-
frivolous issues for appeal. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for
S. Dist. of Iowa,
490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989); cf. 28 U.S.C.
Case: 22-2137 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 10/21/2022
LOPEZ v. US 3
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that . . . the . . . appeal is friv-
olous[.]”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The case is dis-
missed.
(2) Any other pending motion is denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
October 21, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 21, 2022
