NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DANY ROJAS-VEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2019-1475 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:18-cv-01520-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B. Fire- stone. ______________________ Decided: August 8, 2019 ______________________ DANY ROJAS-VEGA, Cocal, Puntarenas, Costa Rica, pro se. ANN MOTTO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Divi- sion, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by JOSEPH H. HUNT, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., LOREN MISHA PREHEIM. ______________________ 2 ROJAS-VEGA v. UNITED STATES Before WALLACH, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Appellant Dany Rojas-Vega sued Appellee United States (“Government”) in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. S.A. 1–6 (Complaint). 1 Mr. Rojas-Vega alleges that, in Au- gust 2001, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Ser- vice (“INS”) improperly initiated deportation proceedings against him, breaching an October 1995 plea agreement that Mr. Rojas-Vega had entered into in state court. S.A. 3–5. Mr. Rojas-Vega seeks monetary and punitive damages against the U.S. Department of Homeland Secu- rity (“DHS”) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforce- ment (“ICE”) (as the successor to INS), S.A. 2, 5, claiming: (1) Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (2012), violations; (2) “due process and equal protection” vi- olations; and, (3) breach of contract, S.A. 2–5. Mr. Rojas- Vega filed a motion for leave to file electronically. S.A. 8– 13. The Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Rojas-Vega’s motion to file electronically, Rojas-Vega v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-01520-NBF (Fed. Cl. Oct. 29, 2018) (Order) (S.A. 16), and dismissed his Complaint for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction, Rojas-Vega v. United States, No. 1:18- cv-01520-NBF (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2018) (Order of Dismissal) (S.A. 26–29); see Rojas-Vega v. United States, No. 1:18-cv- 01520-NBF (Fed. Cl. Nov. 30, 2018) (Judgment) (S.A. 30). Mr. Rojas-Vega appeals the Court of Federal Claims’ denial of his motion to file electronically. He does not appeal the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of his Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). We affirm. 1 S.A. refers to the Government’s Supplemental Ap- pendix attached to its response brief. ROJAS-VEGA v. UNITED STATES 3 “We review the Court of Federal Claims’ decision to dis- miss a case for lack of subject[-]matter jurisdiction de novo.” Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Pursuant to the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over “any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). The Tucker Act “does not create a substantive cause of action,” but instead requires the plain- tiff to identify a “money-mandating” source of law, i.e., “a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.” Fisher ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals