Doe v. United States

Court of Claims

Doe v. United States

231 Ct. Cl. 716, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 311, 1982 WL 25203

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 8, 1982

DocketNo. 732-81C

StatusPublished

This text of 231 Ct. Cl. 716 (Doe v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 716, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 311, 1982 WL 25203 (cc 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

per curiam:

The petition alleges that plaintiff John Doe is a former participant in the Witness Protection Program who claims that he was improperly dealt with by federal law enforcement officials, including being promised (but not receiving) a considerable number of monetary and other benefits. Plaintiffs seek an injunction, a declaratory judgment, and damages. The lawsuit was first brought in the United States District Court, and then transferred to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Defendant moves to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not responded and their time to do so has expired.

We grant the Government’s motion. Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are plainly beyond our jurisdiction, as is the part of the petition which seeks monetary relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act or otherwise in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. To the extent that plaintiffs ask for relief under the Witness Protection Program they have no claim. This court has several times decided that such a participant has no legal right to receive any payments or money under that program even where it is asserted that federal officials have breached promises made to the participants. Doe v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 632 (1980); Festa v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 661 (1980); Propst v. United States, 226 Ct.Cl. 535 (1980); Moon v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 750 (1981); McFarland v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 819 (1981). See also, Kania v. United [717]*717States, 227 Ct.Cl. 458, 650 F.2d 264, 268 (1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 895 (1981).

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

per curiam:

The petition alleges that plaintiff John Doe is a former participant in the Witness Protection Program who claims that he was improperly dealt with by federal law enforcement officials, including being promised (but not receiving) a considerable number of monetary and other benefits. Plaintiffs seek an injunction, a declaratory judgment, and damages. The lawsuit was first brought in the United States District Court, and then transferred to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Defendant moves to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not responded and their time to do so has expired.

We grant the Government’s motion. Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are plainly beyond our jurisdiction, as is the part of the petition which seeks monetary relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act or otherwise in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1491. To the extent that plaintiffs ask for relief under the Witness Protection Program they have no claim. This court has several times decided that such a participant has no legal right to receive any payments or money under that program even where it is asserted that federal officials have breached promises made to the participants. Doe v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 632 (1980); Festa v. United States, 225 Ct.Cl. 661 (1980); Propst v. United States, 226 Ct.Cl. 535 (1980); Moon v. United States, 227 Ct.Cl. 750 (1981); McFarland v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 819 (1981). See also, Kania v. United [717]*717States, 227 Ct.Cl. 458, 650 F.2d 264, 268 (1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 895 (1981).

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 Ct. Cl. 716, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 311, 1982 WL 25203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-united-states-cc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack