Rod Serp v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ROD SERP,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-2319
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00719-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
Decided: July 10, 2025
______________________
ROD S ERP , Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
ROBERT R. K IEPURA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, L ISA L EFANTE D ONAHUE, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY .
______________________
Case: 24-2319 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

SERP v. US 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, STOLL , Circuit Judge, and
BUMB, Chief District Judge.1
P ER CURIAM .
Rod Serp appeals a decision of the United States Court
of Federal Claims granting the government’s motion to dis-
miss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Serp filed a complaint with the Court of Federal
Claims alleging that, over a period of several years begin-
ning in 2010, he provided services to Immigration and Cus-
toms Enforcement (ICE) and other government agencies as
an undercover informant. Appx. 1.2 He alleged that ICE
agents promised he would be paid for his services, he
signed an official contract with the Department of Home-
land Security (DHS), and the government breached this
contract by failing to pay him. Appx. 1–2.
The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court
of Federal Claims held Mr. Serp did not plead a valid con-
tract with the government and therefore failed to establish
subject matter jurisdiction. Appx. 3–4. The court also held
Mr. Serp failed to allege facts on which relief could be
granted. Appx. 4–5. Accordingly, the court granted the
government’s motion and dismissed Mr. Serp’s case.
Mr. Serp appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
1 Honorable Renée M. Bumb, Chief District Judge,
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
sitting by designation.
2 “Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to Appel-
lee’s Informal Brief.
Case: 24-2319 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

SERP v. US 3
D ISCUSSION
We review dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdic-
tion de novo. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. United States,
104 F.4th 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Tucker Act
gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over a claim
against the United States based on any express or implied
contract. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). But the Tucker Act itself
does not create a substantive cause of action; a plaintiff
must identify the contract which, if violated, gives rise to a
claim for money damages against the United States. See
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc). Under Rule of the Court of Federal Claims
(RCFC) 9(k), to plead a contract claim, a plaintiff must
identify the substantive provisions of the contract on which
the party relies.
We review dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo.
B.H. Aircraft Co. v. United States, 89 F.4th 1360, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2024). To plead a valid contract claim, a plaintiff
must allege facts sufficient to establish an express or im-
plied-in-fact contract, entered into by an authorized gov-
ernment agent, and breach of that contract. Trauma Serv.
Grp. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1321, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Mr. Serp argues the Court of Federal Claims improp-
erly required him to provide a copy of the contract, to which
he does not have access, and as a result he was denied a
hearing and the opportunity to present his case. Appel-
lant’s Informal Br. 1–2. But the Court of Federal Claims
did not require Mr. Serp to provide a copy of the contract.
The court expressly stated that, under RCFC 9(k), a plain-
tiff can survive a motion to dismiss for lack of subject mat-
ter jurisdiction by either providing a copy of the contract or
describing the breached contract provisions. Appx. 3. The
court did not dismiss Mr. Serp’s claim because he failed to
provide a copy of the contract; rather, it explained Mr. Serp
failed to describe any details of the contract, including
Case: 24-2319 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

SERP v. US 4
when the alleged contract was signed, who signed it on be-
half of the government, or any other terms of the agree-
ment. Appx. 3–4. Indeed, Mr. Serp did not identify any
contractual terms or provisions and relied only on vague
assertions of the existence of a contract. Appx. 3–4. We
hold the Court of Federal Claims properly concluded
Mr. Serp failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
Mr. Serp also argues he has a Sixth Amendment right
to represent himself. Appellant’s Informal Br. 2. He does
not, however, provide any indication he has been deprived
of that right. See id. Both the Court of Federal Claims and
this Court have allowed Mr. Serp to proceed pro se. See
Appx. 1; ECF No. 5.
Finally, Mr. Serp argues the Court of Federal Claims
denied him the right to subpoena DHS agents. Appellant’s
Informal Br. 2. The Court of Federal Claims could not have
issued any subpoena because it lacked jurisdiction over
Mr. Serp’s complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2) (“A sub-
poena must issue from the court where the action is pend-
ing.”).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Serp’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. We affirm the Court of Fed-
eral Claims’ dismissal of Mr. Serp’s complaint.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2319 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 07/10/2025

-- 4 of 4 --