Omar Medina Alejandro v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
OMAR MEDINA ALEJANDRO,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1591
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:22-cv-00302-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the judg-
ment of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismiss-
ing Omar Medina Alejandro’s complaint. The court
construes Mr. Alejandro’s submission received May 2,
2022, as his opposition to that motion. Mr. Alejandro also
files his opening brief.
Case: 22-1591 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 05/26/2022

-- 1 of 3 --

ALEJANDRO v. US 2
Mr. Alejandro brought this suit seeking $60 million
based on alleged violations of his rights under the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and the oath
of office of the President of the United States. Specifically,
Mr. Alejandro’s complaint alleged that his “right . . . to be
secure” was being infringed by unspecified “outsiders that
violate [his] privacy at home” and that the President
breached his oath of office by failing to act after Mr.
Alejandro reported those violations to the government.
ECF No. 3 at 7. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction, and this appeal followed.
We agree that summary affirmance is appropriate here
because there is no “substantial question regarding the
outcome” of Mr. Alejandro’s appeal. Joshua v. United
States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
The Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims “jurisdic-
tion to render judgment upon 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). In a case like
this one, to establish such jurisdiction, plaintiffs must iden-
tify a source of substantive law that “can fairly be inter-
preted as mandating compensation by the Federal
Government.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S.
287, 290 (2009) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
No such source of substantive law was identified here.
The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that the
Fourth Amendment does not mandate the payment of
money by the government for violations. See Brown v.
United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations
omitted) (“Because monetary damages are not available for
a Fourth Amendment violation, the Court of Federal
Claims does not have jurisdiction over such a violation.”).
The Court of Federal Claims was also clearly correct that
Case: 22-1591 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 05/26/2022

-- 2 of 3 --

ALEJANDRO v. US 3
Mr. Alejandro could not bring suit in that court based on
an alleged breach of the President’s oath of office because
it also does not impose money-mandating obligations on
the United States. See Taylor v. United States, 747 F.
App’x 863, 863–64 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming the dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction over allegations of “breached con-
tracts arising from various oaths of office”).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion is granted. The Court of Federal
Claims’ judgment is summarily affirmed.
(2) Any other pending motions are denied as moot.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
May 26, 2022
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-1591 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 05/26/2022

-- 3 of 3 --