George Andrew Benavides v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GEORGE ANDREW BENAVIDES,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1533
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:26-cv-00347-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
The United States moves to summarily affirm the
United States Court of Federal Claims’s dismissal of
George Andrew Benavides’s complaint. Mr. Benavides’s
opening brief opposes summary affirmance.
Seeking $65,000,000, Mr. Benavides filed suit in the
Court of Federal Claims, asserting claims for a Fifth
Amendment Taking of “liberty, bodily integrity, and
Case: 26-1533 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 04/22/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

BENAVIDES v. US 2
mental autonomy;” breach of contract; a “due process” vio-
lation for false imprisonment; retaliation; interference
with his intellectual property rights; and “loss of
live[li]hood.” Compl. at 3 (some capitalization omitted).
The court dismissed some of the claims for lack of jurisdic-
tion and others for failure to state a claim.
Under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), the Court
of Federal Claims may not decide claims that “sound[] in
tort.” Thus, the Court of Federal Claims was clearly cor-
rect that it lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Benavides’s claims
of false imprisonment, retaliation, interference with his al-
leged property interests, and loss of livelihood. See, e.g.,
Jentoft v. United States, 450 F.3d 1342, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (reaffirming that retaliation claims sound in tort);
Mikohn Gaming Corp. v. Acres Gaming, Inc., 165 F.3d 891,
896 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that interference with prospec-
tive business relations is considered a tort); Quillin v.
United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 727, 727 (1981) (“Any claim of
false imprisonment sounds in tort.” (citation omitted)).
The Court of Federal Claims was also clearly correct
that Mr. Benavides failed to assert a breach-of-contract
claim within its limited jurisdiction. He alleges a breach of
an implied “contract with the United States upon enlist-
ment” in the U.S. Marine Corps by “failing to protect Plain-
tiff’s bodily integrity, subjecting him to unauthorized
medical treatment, and interfering with his published
works and royalties.” Compl. at 3. This, “at best, can only
be construed as a contract implied-in-law,” which is outside
the Court of Federal Claims’s jurisdiction. Straw v. United
States, 710 F. App’x 881, 883 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Her-
cules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423 (1996)).
The Court of Federal Claims does have jurisdiction un-
der the Tucker Act over claims that the federal government
has taken private property without just compensation.
Here, however, as noted by the trial court, even making all
reasonable inferences in his favor, Mr. Benavides’s
Case: 26-1533 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 04/22/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

BENAVIDES v. US 3
allegations fail to plausibly state a claim for relief. He al-
leges only a deprivation of “liberty, bodily integrity, and
mental autonomy without just compensation, in violation
of the [Takings Clause of the] Fifth Amendment.” Compl.
at 3. The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct that
those allegations do not constitute a taking of a property
interest covered by the Takings Clause.
The Court of Federal Claims was likewise clearly cor-
rectly that Mr. Benavides failed to state a viable claim for
relief against the United States for copyright infringement
under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b). Mr. Benavides’s complaint al-
leges only “obstruction of Plaintiffs books and withheld roy-
alties violated copyright and commercial laws,” Compl. at
3, based on the obstruction of the “publication, distribution,
and sale” of a book entitled “e1994 Hacked Mind and
PAWN OFF,” id. at 2. Mr. Benavides does not plausibly
allege any cognizable act of infringement or a taking that
could establish relief here.
We have considered Mr. Benavides’s arguments but
they do not present any basis for disturbing the trial court’s
judgment. Because we conclude that “the position of” the
United States here “is so clearly correct as a matter of law
that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the
appeal exists,” we agree that summary affirmance of the
trial court’s dismissal is warranted. Joshua v. United
States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The Court of Federal
Claims’s judgment is summarily affirmed.
(2) Any other pending motion is denied.
Case: 26-1533 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 04/22/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

BENAVIDES v. US 4
(3) Each party shall bear its own costs.
April 22, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-1533 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 04/22/2026

-- 4 of 4 --