Johnson v. United States

Court of Claims

Johnson v. United States

231 Ct. Cl. 840, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 380, 1982 WL 25324

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJuly 16, 1982

DocketNo. 68-82C

StatusPublished

This text of 231 Ct. Cl. 840 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 840, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 380, 1982 WL 25324 (cc 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

per curiam:

This is a suit (almost exactly like Doe v. United States, ante at 716) in which plaintiff Ronald Johnson, claiming to be a former participant in the Witness Protection Program, asserts that the United States breached obligations owing to him. Plaintiffs seek mandamus, an injuction and other affirmative relief, a declaratory judgment, damages for tortious acts, and damages for alleged breaches of contractual commitments undertaken by the Government under the Witness Protection Program. Defendant has moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not responded and their time to do so has expired.

Doe v. United States, supra, is controlling. The nonmone-tary relief sought (including mandamus, injunctions, declaratory judgment) are beyond this court’s jurisdiction, as is the claim for tortious damages. As for the part of the suit which attempts to found itself on the Witness Protection Act and Program, it is settled that a participant in that program has no legal right to receive any payment or money even where it is asserted that federal officials have breached promises made to the participants under the program.

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:

This is a suit (almost exactly like Doe v. United States, ante at 716) in which plaintiff Ronald Johnson, claiming to be a former participant in the Witness Protection Program, asserts that the United States breached obligations owing to him. Plaintiffs seek mandamus, an injuction and other affirmative relief, a declaratory judgment, damages for tortious acts, and damages for alleged breaches of contractual commitments undertaken by the Government under the Witness Protection Program. Defendant has moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs have not responded and their time to do so has expired.

Doe v. United States, supra, is controlling. The nonmone-tary relief sought (including mandamus, injunctions, declaratory judgment) are beyond this court’s jurisdiction, as is the claim for tortious damages. As for the part of the suit which attempts to found itself on the Witness Protection Act and Program, it is settled that a participant in that program has no legal right to receive any payment or money even where it is asserted that federal officials have breached promises made to the participants under the program.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 Ct. Cl. 840, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 380, 1982 WL 25324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-united-states-cc-1982.