BAUTISTA v. United States, 1:24-cv-01511

Robert Allen Bautista, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims after his application for a diplomatic passport was denied; he was instead issued a regular U.S. passport.
Bautista claimed this denial violated various statutes, regulations, and the Constitution.
He sought court orders compelling the government to issue him a diplomatic passport, remove his personal information from federal databases, and pay him $250 million and 250 units of gold.
The court reviewed the complaint sua sponte and questioned its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act via an order to show cause.
Bautista failed to identify any statute or regulation that mandates money damages for the wrongs he alleged, nor any contractual obligation with the United States.
The court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case under Rule 12(h)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction under the Tucker Act	Tucker Act allows claims for violations including passport denial	No money-mandating law cited	No jurisdiction; Tucker Act alone insufficient
Existence of a contract via passport application	Passport application creates contract with U.S.	No contract exists in passport apps	No contract; application not contractually binding
Right to return of application fees/assets	Denied application entitles him to refund of fees/assets	No law mandates refund	No legal basis for returning fees/assets
Qualifying as money-mandating source of law	General invocation of violations of federal law	Needs specific money-mandating law	No specific money-mandating law cited; dismissed

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (no substantive right to money damages under Tucker Act unless statute mandates such damages)
Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (plaintiff must identify a money-mandating source of law)
Chattler v. United States, 632 F.3d 1324 (passport applications are not contracts)