3Jn tbc Wnitcb ~tatcs' q[,ourt of jfcbcral q[,laims No. 18-978C (Pro Se) (Filed: January 25, 2019) ) RICHARD A. CHICHAKLI, ) Keywords: Pro Se; Motion to Dismiss; ) Takings Clause; IEEPA; Economic Plaintiff, ) Sanctions; Executive Order 13348 ) V. ) ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) --------------) Richard A. Chichakli, Plano, TX, pro se. Ann C. Motto, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, with whom were Tara K Hogan, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Joseph H Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER KAPLAN,J. Plaintiff Richard A. Chichakli, appearing prose, brings this action against the United States alleging that the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and other federal entities appropriated his personal property in violation of various federal regulations and several constitutional provisions, including the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. His allegations arise out of an April 2005 decision by the Depmiment of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") classifying Mr. Chichakli as a "Specially Designated National" ("SDN") pursuant to Executive Order 13348 ("EO 13348" or "the Order"). Treasury based the designation decision on Mr. Chichakli's affiliation with Victor Bout, a Russian national and known arms and minerals trafficker. As a consequence of the designation, OFAC blocked all of Mr. Chichakli's funds, accounts, business records, and assets and seized a number of items from his home. Among the items taken during the seizure were various valuables including dimnonds, gold, cash, foreign currency, bank notes, original art, and personal vehicles. Mr. Chichakli unsuccessfully challenged his designation before OFAC and in federal court. Though the sanctions against Mr. Chichakli were effectively lifted as a result of a November 2015 executive order, his assets were not returned to him until May 2017. 7018 0040 0001 1393 1198 Mr. Chichaldi filed the present lawsuit on July 9, 2018, alleging, among other things, that not all of his property was returned and that the eighteen-month delay between OFAC's release and return of the assets constituted a taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Mr. Chichakli also alleges that the seizures of his property violate EO 13348 and affiliated regulations. He further claims that the government officials "plundered" several items which were not returned to him and that they deliberately caused other items to lose value. Presently before the Court is the government's motion to dismiss. It argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over most of Mr. Chichakli's complaint because none of the sources oflaw on which he bases his claims--other than the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause-are money- mandating. It further argues that Mr. Chichaldi has failed to state a viable claim under the Takings Clause because his property was not taken for public use. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with the government. Accordingly, the government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. BACKGROUND 1 I. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act and Executive Order 13348 In two resolutions, dated ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals