Andrews v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 25-1926
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1926 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 09/29/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JEFFREY ANDREWS, WESLEY ANDREWS, COLTON ANDREWS, ELLERY ANDREWS, LYNN ANDREWS, Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2025-1926 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01088-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants have not responded. On February 28, 2025, the United States Court of Fed- eral Claims entered judgment dismissing appellants’ com- plaint. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration on Case: 25-1926 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 09/29/2025

March 27, 2025, which the court denied on April 8, 2025. Appellants then submitted a “motion for clarification,” ask- ing the court to opine on whether a taking occurred. On April 29, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims denied that re- quest, stating that it was “not a request for clarification of anything in this court’s prior orders” and the question was “wholly irrelevant” to the jurisdictional issue of the case. ECF No. 3-5 at 1. On June 20, 2025, appellants filed a no- tice of appeal directed to the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Second Circuit, which was rejected on June 26, 2025 for failure to designate this court as the court of appeals, followed by a second notice of appeal directed to this court filed on July 9, 2025.1 The timely filing of a notice of appeal from a final deci- sion by the Court of Federal Claims is a jurisdictional re- quirement that cannot be waived and is not subject to equitable tolling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2522; Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); cf.

1 While the initial notice of appeal directed to the Second Circuit was filed within 60 days from the trial court’s order denying their motion for clarification and per- haps should not have been rejected for failing to designate this court, see, e.g., United States v. Musa, 946 F.2d 1297, 1301 (7th Cir. 1991), we see no basis for taking further ac- tion or allowing an appeal based on that submission. Even if the trial court’s April 29, 2025 order could be deemed a “final decision” subject to appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3), we can conceive of no non-frivolous basis to appeal such ruling under the circumstances presented. See generally Amara v. Cigna Corp., 53 F.4th 241, 253 (2d Cir. 2022) (noting an “appeal from a later order does not give us jurisdiction to hear an untimely appeal from an earlier order, which was itself an appealable final order” (cleaned up)). Case: 25-1926 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 09/29/2025

ANDREWS v. US 3

Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011). To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the Court of Federal Claims within 60 days of the entry of a final deci- sion, see 28 U.S.C. § 2107. Certain post-judgment motions, including timely motions for reconsideration, toll the time to file an appeal until the court disposes of such motions. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(C). But appellants’ “motion for clarification” is not one. See Du- rango Assocs., Inc. v. Reflange, Inc., 912 F.2d 1423, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (noting that a “second post-judgment mo- tion . . . will not further stay the period for appeal”). Be- cause appellants did not file their notice of appeal within 60 days from the order denying the timely motion for re- consideration, we must dismiss as untimely. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The United States’s motion is granted to the extent that this appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

September 29, 2025 Date