Case: 22-2144 Document: 28 Page: 1 Filed: 11/17/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TODD SCHAEFFER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-2144
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:20-cv-01498-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The United States moves to dismiss this appeal as un-
timely filed. Todd Schaeffer opposes and, among other
things, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed
Mr. Schaeffer’s complaint, entered judgment in August
2021, and denied reconsideration on December 29, 2021.
On January 7, 2022, the court issued an anti-filing order,
Case: 22-2144 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 11/17/2022
2 SCHAEFFER v. US
directing its Clerk’s Office “to reject any future filings other
than a properly served notice of appeal.” Schaeffer v.
United States, No. 1:20-cv-01498-RTH (Fed. Cl. Jan. 7,
2022), ECF No. 31. The Court of Federal Claims’ docket
reflects that the anti-filing order has been invoked twice:
first, on January 10, 2022, and second, on August 11, 2022,
the latter instance returning as unfiled Mr. Schaeffer’s doc-
uments entitled “Relief” and “Document ZZZZ” received on
that same day. ECF No. 1-2 at 6. On August 17, 2022, Mr.
Schaeffer filed a notice of appeal from the “order filed Jan-
uary 7, 2022, directing the office to reject plaintiff’s filings
without proper notice of appeal,” purportedly entered on
“August 16, 2022.” ECF No. 1-2 at 1.
We lack jurisdiction over an appeal from the trial
court’s judgment or the January 7, 2022, anti-filing order
because an appeal of those decisions is untimely. A notice
of appeal from the Court of Federal Claims must be filed
within 60 days of the entry of judgment or order from which
the appeal is taken. See 28 U.S.C. § 2522; 28 U.S.C.
§ 2107(b). We have held that deadline to be a jurisdictional
rule imposed by Congress with the intent of denying this
court jurisdiction once the filing window has closed. See
Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir.
2008); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007).
The notice of appeal here was filed more than 60 days from
the date of issuance of those rulings and is therefore un-
timely. *
* The court notes Mr. Schaeffer’s January 10, 2022,
submission (rejected from filing the same day) cannot rea-
sonably be construed as a notice of appeal from the Janu-
ary 7, 2022, order because he expressly requested relief
from the Court of Federal Claims, see, e.g., ECF No. 10-4 at
152, and does not reasonably indicate an intent to appeal
to this court, as would be required of a notice of appeal by
Rule 3(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Case: 22-2144 Document: 28 Page: 3 Filed: 11/17/2022
SCHAEFFER v. US 3
To the extent Mr. Schaeffer seeks review of the trial
court’s August 11, 2022, action refusing to accept his sub-
missions per the anti-filing order, we dismiss his appeal as
frivolous. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa,
490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
(“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the . . . appeal is frivolous[.]”). Mr.
Schaeffer’s various filings raise no cognizable argument as
to why his submission should have been docketed after
judgment had already been entered in his case and in light
of the anti-filing order.
Lastly, we address Mr. Schaeffer’s assertions of confi-
dentiality in his submissions to this court. Mr. Schaeffer
contends that the entirety of ECF Nos. 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 10-1,
10-2, 10-3, and 10-4 should be treated as confidential, be-
cause the “[m]aterials were filed sealed with the agency
and in the trial court” and that confidentiality is necessary
to “protect the reputations of parties.” ECF No. 13 at 2. On
September 10, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims expressly
ordered all of Mr. Schaeffer’s filings be unsealed, ECF No.
10-3 at 28, and we see no justification for sealing his mate-
rials here. See In re Violation of Rule 28(d), 635 F.3d 1352,
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (recognizing a strong presumption in
favor of public access to appellate court proceedings).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The government’s motion is granted to the extent
that this appeal is dismissed.
(2) All other motions are denied.
(3) ECF Nos. 3, 7, 9, 10, and 13 are unsealed.
Case: 22-2144 Document: 28 Page: 4 Filed: 11/17/2022
4 SCHAEFFER v. US
(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
November 17, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 17, 2022