# oRr0lNAt

Iln

# t\t @nitr! $ltatts 

# [.ourt of

# /r[prs[ @Isims No. l3-363C 

### (Filed: June

### 4,2014) +*,*r**{<*)t*+:t"t*:}*:t**.**,r**t ** *

### *** ** {.,t* 

### JULIO VILLARS, 

# Plainrifl, :*



## v. r. 

### THE UNITED STATES,
*



## Defendant. *

* * * * * * **,t,*,* +* * +* {(* * * * * * * :} * * * * * :r * * * * 1(*

### *



### DAMICH, Judge.
In

### this action, 

### Plaintifr Julio

### villars, acting

### pro se, alleges that the 

### united states 

### ("Defendant")t breached an 

### impried-in-fa.t 

## "ontrii .'"rtr, 

### 'piaintiff, who, purswmt to the alleged contract, 

### provided services as a

### confidential human source 

### c,cHs,) in exchanle for an S

### Visa'

## ' which could lead 

### to legar permanent residence 

### in trre 

### unitei 

# a.il;.

# d; Plaintifls contract-based claims constitute counrs 

### I, 

### II and 

### IV ofthe complaint.l 

## piririiir further claims that Defbndant 

### took his property 

### without

### just compensation 

### in violation 

### of the 

### Fifth Amendment (count 

## III). Defendant 

### hu,

### -ou"d to

### dir.iss counts r,

# I unJrv io. lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction, on the grounds that

### theseclaims request the remedy

### of

' 

### Plaintiffnames a number 

### of entities and 

### individuals in his 

### complaint as 

### "Defendants" other than the 

### Unitedstates. 

### compl. 

### fl 

## r. ar *r" onty 

### proier deiendant 

### in this 

### court isthe 

### united States, the 

### court dismisses the claims against these 

### individuals and

### entities see Llnited States.v 

### sherwood,3l2 

### u.s. 5g4, 58s 

### (194r); 

### Brownv. (Jnired States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 

### (Fed,.Cir. 1997).

2 Pursuant 

### to 8 U.S.C. $.1 

### l0l(aX15)(S), the

### Attomey General 

### has been granted the 

### authority to issue a 

### nonimmigrant SVisa 

### to a person ,,in possession 

### ofcritical reliable 

### informationconcemingacriminilorganizariono.'""i;;.i;;...[who]...hassupplied such 

### information to Federar 

### or state 

### law enforcement 

### u,rtho.iti", or a Federal or state court; 

### and

. . .whose presence in the 

### united states the

### Attomey General determines is essential 

### to the success 

### ofan authorized 

### criminal investisation.

. . _,, 

# FILED JUN 

## 4 2rI4 

# 'H;?-??'&1ffi

OPINION AND ORDERspecific 

### performance. Defendant 

### further moves 

### to dismiss count 

### III for failure to state a



### claim upon 

### which 

### relief can be granted.
Because the 

### Court finds that 

### Plaintiffs counts 

### I, 

### II and 

### IV seek the remedy 

### of specific performance, a remedy not afforded to this 

### Court, 

### it must grant Defendant's 

### motion 

### with regard to these 

### claims. Further, the

### court must dismiss count 

### III because 

### Plaintiff has 

### failed to state a

### claim upon 

### which relief can be 

### granted. Therefore, 

### for the reasonsthat

### follow, Defendant's motions 

### to dismiss are

### GRANTED. 

# L Background Facts 

### In early 2008, 

### Plaintiff alleges that

### while incarcerated and 

### awaiting deportation to Honduras 

### by Immigration and 

### customs Enforcement 

### ("rcE"), plaintiff co.-ntu"t.a, 

### uy letter' Federal 

### law enforcement agencies 

### including the'Federar Bureau 

### of 

### Investigiion ("FBI") and the 

### Drug Enforcement 

### Administration 

### 1"oEa";, offering to act as a.i 

### informant' complainr 

### ("compl.") nn 

### 12,45. In

### hii letter, 

### plaintiff $ecified that he was 

### willing to act as an 

### informant in exchange 

### for receiving the 

### infbrmant 

### s

### visa which would enable 

### him to later become a legal permanent 

### ,"-.id"nt. Compl. fl 2. 

### In late 

### 2008, 

### plaintiff became a

### CHS, Def. Br., 

### Ex. 1,2013 Decl. 

### of

### William Roecker-u 6 

### ("Ex. 

### l"), and continued as a CHS 

### throughbctober 2010. Compl.

# flli During this 

### time, 

### plaintiff assisted 

### in the 

### ur.ert 

### of sr.Ipe"ts and the

### ai."orr".y'or ili.gur drugs, 

### Compl. 11112,41, and was paid atvarious

# ti... fo. 

### U, efforts. 

### Ex. f 1

## S.-

# - Plaintiffalso agreed to have a

### tracling device installed on his

### truck and 

### for his business telephones to be 

### monitored by the Govemment 

### while acting as a

### cHS. compl. fltT36-3s This 

### relationship, 

### plaintiff contends, created an

### imptiJi-n-Lct contract

# ;;r*;"'i;ir;; and the 

### FBI. See

### generally Compl. In 2009 and 2010, 

### plaintiff was arrested 

### for 

### driving underthe 

### influence

### C,DUD. 

### Ex' I tffl 10,

## 1l' As a result 

### of rhe second 

### DUI 

### u,,"rt, 

## pi;i*tff *as designared

### for deportation. Compl. 

### fl

### 33. However, 

### in order 

### for 

### plaintiff to remain 

### in the country to 

### testifu atthe 

### criminal trials for which he had actedas a

## cn!, irr"

# tirril&;;;?#.",. office obtained a material witness

### warrant.

## S* grrrroity

# Co"rpl-;;.rt_tb.";i;;i;. remained detained underthe material 

### witn".s 

## *fiaot frJm 

### Nou",nb". 10, 2010 to 

# !::y !:201l- Compl. 

### fl

## 39. His detention, 

## pr"irtiii"ir"g*, caused 

### him to have his 

### truck repossessed and 

### his

### family evicted. 1d



# . At some 

### point, the 

### United states 

### Attomey,s 

### office determined that 

### plaintiff s 

### tesllmony was no longer needed and 

### for some 

### unkno*n reason, 

### praintiff was released rather than being deporred back 

### to_Hondurar. 

### E".

# ifir 

# il,l3. To date, 

### plaintiff resides 

### in Chicago, 

### Illinois. See 

### pl. 

### Br. 15; Compl. 

### fl 16. 

# II. Procedural 

### History
on May 29,2013 

### praintiff filed a

### four-count complaint in this 

### court. praintiff alleges that the 

### FBI breached an 

### implied-in-ruo .onou"i-i'count I), breached an 

### impliedcovenant

### ofgood faith and 

### fair dealing (Count 

### II), and that the agency conspired 

### to breach and interfere 

### with an 

### implied-in-fact contract 

### (Count 

## IV). Plaintiff asserts that 

### "his only purpose 

### to enter 

### into a contract 

### with the 

### United States govemment was to reap the 

### Immigration benefits 

### offered in the 

### Immigration and 

### Naturalization 

### Act, 8 

### U.S.C. $ 

### l10l(a)(15)(S) [to] getthe S

### VISA and become 

### [a] legal permanent 

### resident." Compl. 

### fl 

### 55. Plaintiff further claims that Defendant 

### took his 

### propertywithout

### just compensation 

### in violation of the 

### Fifth Amendment 

### by 

## (l) installing atransmitter on his 

### truck, using his 

### vehicle and 

### monitoring his telephones and (2) 

### by incarcerating 

### him as a material riritness 

### which lead 

### him to lose his 

### truck and company 

### (count 

## III). In response, Defendant 

### filed a 

### motion to dismiss 

### Plaintiff s

### complaint, or in the alternative, a 

### motion for summary 

### judgment pursuant

### to 

### Rulesl2 (bX6) and 56

### ofthe Rules 

### of the 

### united states

### court 

### of Federal

### claims 

### ('RCFC").3 plaintiff timely responded 

### in opposiriona

# il D.i";l;; replied.



# - On 

### April 29,2014, the Court ordered supplemental briefrng 

### with regard to 

### whetherihis court hadjurisdiction over 

### plaintiff scontract 

### ctaimsl court 5rder (Dkt # 

## f!' Anril 29'2014). The 

### court ordered the parties

### to address the question as to

### wiether this 

### court had

### jurisdiction to order the 

### Attomey General

### to issue an S

### visa which would enable 

### Plaintiffto later become a legal 

### permanlnt resident. Simurtaneous briefs were to be filed- o,n or before 

### May 12'2014, 1d. Defendant 

### complied and moved 

### to dismiss counts 

### I, 

### II and 

### IV of 

### plaintiff scomplaint 

### pusuant to R^CFC 

### 12(bx1). plaintiff did not 

### timely respond. 

# III. Standard of Review 

# A. Pro Se 

### Standard 

# ^ To begin, parlies actingpr-o.se are generally held 

### to ..ress stringent standards,, than 

### professionallawyers. 

## see,e.g.,Hainesv.krrrrr,'qiii.i.5t9,5t0_it'i;?4["or,nr,J that allegations contained 

### in a pro se compraint be herd 

### to ,.less strrngent standards than 

# iil g:i1l1ql 

## i':T9,

# !f

# y" "") 

### ;.pi 

### un'

# v' i'i,,i i,' zs

### c F. 3

### d 1 3 3

### 5, 13 57 (Fed. 

### rtL' 

### 'vvz) 

## ( [rJne preadlngs 

### orpro se 

### litigants should be held

### to a lesser

### standardih; rhose drafted by professionar lawyers

. . . 

### .). Nevertheless, 

### '[t]he 

## a.t trrur

### trpruinird"^ acted 

### pro se 

### in the.drafting 

### of his complainr 

### n'uy 

### .*pfuin 

## iL amUiguities, Uirt

# il;;;1r, excuse its 

### failure, 

### ifsuch rhere 

### be." Iienkev. 

## irittairo,u,60F.3d795,799(Fed. cir. 1995).



### r Because the 

### Court finds the case ripe 

### for dismissal, the Court need 

### not address Defendant's 

### altemative motion for summary 

### iudgment and denies the 

### motion as moot. 

### a In his response 

### in opp,osition, 

### plaintiffalso requests 

### discovery. In light 

### ofthis opinion, the Court also 

### deniei rne request as moot.

## B. Motion to Dismiss 

### under RCFC 

## l2(bxl) A motion brought pursuant to 

### RCFC 

### 12(b)(l) challenges the 

### Court's subject matter

### jurisdiction. see 

### RCFC 

### 12(bX1). Subject matter

### jurisdiction may be challenged at any 

### time by the parties, or as isthe case here, by the

### court saa 

### sponte. 

### Boothv. 

### unied states,990F.2d617,620 (Fed. 

## cir. 1993). Indeed, 

### this 

### court,slurisdiction to enterrain claims and grant 

### relief, like all Federal courts, depends on the extent 

### towhich the 

### united !_t11eg na1 

### waived sovereign 

### immunity. United Siatesv. Testan, 424

### tJ.S. 

### 3g2,3g9 ( I

### 976). The burden 

### of establishing the

### court's subject matter

### jurisdiction rests

### with the 

### plainriff, who must establishj urisdic 

### tion. Lujan v.-Defenders 

### Lywnan|r,504 

### u.s. 555, 561 (1992); 

### McNuu v. Gen. 

### Motors Acc,eprance Corp. 

### of

## Ina.,ig|U.{. hA, 

## ne geli4. Even so,when faced 

### with a

### motion to dismiss 

### for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction, a-' court must assume that

# a undisputed facts alleged 

### in the 

### complaint

# *. i-., and 

### it must 

### drawallreasonableinferencesintheplaintiffs-favor. 

## scheue)v,Rhodes,ciei.i.iii 236 (1974); seealso Henke

### v. 

### (lniteiSrates,60 F.3d 

### 295, 797 

### (Fed.Cir. 1995). 

# C. Motion to Dismiss 

### under RCF.C 

### l2(bx6) RCFC 

### l2(bx6) allowsfor the dismissal 

### of a

### complaint 

### if, assuming the 

### truth of 

### ail the allegations, the 

### complaint fails to state

# ""r"i. "p"r irrtich relief may be granted as a 

### matterof 

### law. Lindsavv. 

### unitedstates,2g5Fsdi52,1257 

## (Fed.ci..iooz].-ivi"""' analyzing a 

### motion to dismiss under 

### RCFC 

## rztuitolirt" 

## L"rrt must also accept as true the 

### complainr's undisputed 

### fa*ual 

## allegario;;;;;;iJ."nstrue them 

### in a 

### light most 

### favorabletoplainriff. Goutd, 

### Inc.".

# uin;iitoi,slJ;za n71,1274(Fed.Cir. 

### l99l), and "the. 

### [f]actual allegations must be enough to 

### ,ui." u.igfrt to 

### relief above the speculative 

### level.,' Belt 

### Attantic Corp. 

### ".

# rirr*fiy,-iii U".s. 

### S++, 555

### (2007. 

# IV. Discussion Defendant raises

### two 1g3es trral 

### gris

# .",n ,".i.,:"Tilil,i;f 

# ,T;:Ji';ffi::#tl""f:il:il* ,:ii'h,j 

# ," seeks 

### specific performance ralher than money

# d;;g;. G"ona, Defendant argues that 

### Lt1'r1tt{n", not adequarely pleaded a

# ,Jil; 

# il;il, ti.,.rrtir.., his 

### complaint fails to state a 

### claim upon 

### which relief may be granied. 

## A. This 

### Court Lacks 

### Jurisdiction over Counts 

### I, 

## II and 

## IV Defendant argues that by 

### plaintiffs own words the alleged 

### implied-in_fact contract never contemplated monetary damages uut trtui 

### inri.uo the actual 

### relief 

### plaintiff seeks is specific 

### performance.

# fnur,b"f.na'_t;;;;", counts 

### I, 

### II and 

### IV fall beyond

### thejurisdiction of this 

### coun as

### provided by the 

### Tucker

### act. Pursuant to theTucker 

### Act' 2g

### u.s.c. $ l4g l ,this 

### court maintains

### jurisdiction to entertain monetary claims founded upon

## ttt"r*ing, 

# iiurri "r,rr" united states 

### Constitution, money-mandating statutes and reguraitions'o, 

### "ont 

### u"tr. 2s

### u.s.c. $ 

## I49l(axl) A contract 

### whichintirles "

## p*vi""-."".y iu,iug., in the event 

### of a breachis such a money-mandating 

### source. See Rick's Mushroom Service, 

### Inc. v. United States, 521 

### F.3d 1338, 1343-44 (Fed. 

### Cir. 

### 2008). However, "consent 

### to suit under the 

### Tucker 

### Act does not extend

### to every 

### contract." Holmes 

### v. United 

### States,657 F.3d 1303, 1309. For instance, a contract 

### claim seeking specific performance is 

### not a remedy thatthis 

### court is empowered

### to grant. Nat 

### 'l Center 

### for Mfg. Sciences 

### v. United States, 114 F

### .3d 196, 198 (Fed. 

## cir. 1997). But because there is apresumption that money damages 

### flow 

### fiom a breach 

### of contract, see 

### Holmes,657 F.3d

## atl3l4; seealso sanders 

### v. 

### united states, 252 F '3d' 1329, 1334 (Fed.

### cir. 2001) 

### (in govemment contracts there is apresumption that adamages remedy

### will be available upon the breach 

### ofan agreementj, 

### wher; a contract 

### "could involve purely nonmonetary 

### relief.

. .

### it [i]s proper 

### for the court 

### to require a

### demonsfation that the_agreements coutd 

### fairly be interpreted as contemplating money damages 

### in the event 

### of b

### reach." Holmes,6sT F.3d, 

### at 

## Ii15. Inthis 

### instance,

# ' "[t]his court may require a

### plaintiff to render 

### proofthat the contract can

### fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal 

### Government.,, Higbie v. United 

## :!:::,', 1

# t: Fed.,Ct. 358, 363 -64 (20 |3) (quoring Hot mes, 657 F.3d 

### ut r

### :Ts luaaitionui clranons 

### omltted). Inthis case, 

### Plaintiffa eges in his 

### complaint that the 

### "only purpose,' 

### to enter 

### into the alleged 

### implied-in-fact contract was to receive legal permanent residence through an S Visa and that he 

### "never asked

### to be m_onetary[illy 

### ,".,nin..ur.d... 

### S", Co,"pi. 

### ;fl 

## ;;_;;. It is therefore clear to the

### court that by

## plaintiiisiwn words the 

### "ll.g"d 

# i;;ii"i_i;_f;; conracrrever contemplated monetary damages, but instead tt at

### th. 

## rlli"f pLi"tiff i.

## --' seeking is specific performance_of the

### utt.g"i 

## "ont.u"i*iit,

## o"r.na*t. sp""rn""'y, Plaintiff is requesting the specific 

## perfo..i"." oiii6 uriegea 

### implied-in-fact contract 

### by asking 

### this 

### court to order the

### Attoiney General

### ortrr" 

## uni"a

# sti., t"

# i.rr"li;;.{ " Visa. This Court does not possess

## jurisai",."," 

# g;,;h relief. In 

### light of this, the Court must dismiss Counts r, 

### rt 

### anj 

## ryf".

# il;l-;f;;j';Latter jurisdiction. 

## B. There are no Cognizable 

### Takings Claims 

### Upon Which Relief can be 

### Granted
The Takings Clause 

### ofthe Fifth Amendment statesthar .,private 

### property [shall not betaken

### forl public use, wirhout

# jusr.;p;;:;;;;:;.s. coNST. amend. 

## V. A claimanr 

### alleging a 

### Fifth Amendmeni

# taktd;;i;;:;;show thatthe 

### united srates, 

### bv 

## ::::lry..1fi. actior, tooka private 

### propert! 

## int...rt ro.

## puiti.

# "r.;i,h";l;r; v!E,vo, 

### vr compensarion.', Short 

### v. United 

### St r"r. 5O

### f,.3d 9g4, rc06@ed. 

### Cir. f

## llS;. fn tne present case, 

### Plaintiffa'eses two. takings ctartns, 

### neiihe. 

### orwhich are a cognizable claim. First, 

### Plaintiff alleges

## thatbefena-,,"-"t ni. 

### p.?p"r,,

## *iifr"rr:rst compensation 

### in violation of the 

### Fifth Amendment by. 

### incar."."',i"g 

# liir u.l-ut".,ut witness 

### which then caused 

### him to lose his

### truck

# -o ttu.r.ing

# *-f-].'ilil of this, 

### plainriff sdetention as a

### material witness does not

### qqger atakings 

### .tuirn 

### uni".1n. Fifth Amendment. ,See 

### Hurtado.v 

## Ltnitedstates'+touil:za,iss:89(6i,;'crh"detentionofamaterial wrtness, 

### in short, is 

### simolv not a 

### ,taking, una". tfre 

### pilih'Amendment.

. . 

### .,,) Second, 

### Plaintiff alleges rhat 

### bv 

### instalinga fan-smitter on 

### rr" 

## i."r.'ov using his vehicles 

### while a CHS, and by 

### monitoring his relelhones, 

# ,h";"i;;;;;;L'o toot tris 

### propertywithout iust

### compensation. This argument also 

### fails as 

### Plaintiff consented 

### to its use.5 Compl. 

### lltf 14,



### 36-37 F.C,C. v. 

### Florida Power 

### Corp.,480 U.S. 245, 252 

### (9e7); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto 

### Co.,467 U.S. 

### 986, 1007 

### (1984). Therefore, the Court dismisses 

### Plaintiffs takings claims under 

### RCFC 12(bX6) 

### for failure to state a

### claim upon 

### which 

### reliefcan be granted. 

# V. Conclusion
For the reasons set

### forth above the Court 

### GRANTS Defendant's 

### Motion to 

### Dismiss Counts 

### I, 

### II and 

### IV for lack 

### of subject matter

### jurisdiction pursuant

### to RCFC 

### l2(b)(1) and 

### GRANTS Defendant's 

### Motion to 

### Dismiss 

### Plaintiff stakings claims 

### for failureto state a

### claim pursuant

### to RCFC 

### 12OX6). The 

### Clerk is directed 

### to enter 

### judgment accordingly.



### EDWARD J: 

### AMICH Senior Judge



### 5 In his responsive 

### brief, Plaintiffalso asserts that he was coerced 

### into consenting to wearing a radio 

### transmitter. Pl. 

### Br. 10. Even 

### if the Court were 

### to credit this allegation, this court lacks

### jurisdiction for such a 

### claim. See 

### Crockerv. United States, 125 F.3d 147

### 5, 1476 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1997) (Tucker 

### Act does not create

### jurisdiction in the Court 

### of Federal 

### Claimsfor aparty contesting the 

### propriety 

### ofa seizure); Tabb Lakes, 

### Ltd. v. 

### united states,10 F.3d 796, 802 (Fed. 

### Cir. 1993) 

### ("[The] claimant musr concede the 

### validity of the government action 

### which isthe basis 

### ofthe takings 

### claim to bring suit under the

### TuckerAct.).