LOPEZ v. USA, No. 1:2022cv00330 - Document 21 (Fed. Cl. 2022)
Court Description: UNREPORTED OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Granting 14 Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) filed by USA. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. Signed by Judge Stephen S. Schwartz. (cmc) Service on parties made; plaintiff served via first class mail. (dls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LOPEZ v. USA Doc. 21 In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-330C (Filed: August 23, 2022) NOT FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** ARTHUR LOPEZ, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * *************************************** OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Arthur Lopez — proceeding pro se — seeks monetary relief on claims arising from loss of his house. See Compl. at 4 (ECF 1). The government has moved to dismiss. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (ECF 14); Pl.’s Resp. (ECF 17); Def.’s Reply (ECF 20). The motion is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED. Plaintiff alleges that the loss of his house involved a taking of property without the just compensation required by the Fifth Amendment. This Court has jurisdiction over takings claims. But Plaintiff must plead facts that — if taken as true — would plausibly “establish that [a] government action caused the injury.” St. Bernard Par. Gov’t v. United States, 887 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Adams v. United States, 391 F.3d 1212, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see generally Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff provides no such facts. At most, he pleads that a former federal official was on the board of a bank that deprived him of his property. Assuming that is true — and making allowances for Plaintiff’s pro se status, see Scott v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 755, 758 (2017) — it does not support a reasonable inference that the government itself took any action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The United States, moreover, is “the only proper defendant for any matter before this [C]ourt,” see Stephenson v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 186, 190 (2003) (citing United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)), so Plaintiff cannot proceed in this case against either the bank or the former federal official. In his response to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff refers to an alleged conspiracy between the United States and the bank. Pl.’s Resp. at 5. Even forgiving Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff’s failure to present those theories in his Complaint, “the allegations are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. Another problem with the Complaint is that “[a] takings claim must be premised on otherwise lawful government action.” Scott, 134 Fed. Cl. at 764. Plaintiff argues that his property was taken illegally. Pl.’s Resp. at 5–6. That precludes Plaintiff from pursuing a takings theory as well. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Stephen S. Schwartz STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ Judge -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
