Case: 21-1535 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DOROTHY M. HARTMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-1535
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:20-cv-00832-EMR, Judge Eleni M. Roumel.
______________________
Decided: September 3, 2021
______________________
DOROTHY M. HARTMAN, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.
GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F.
HOCKEY, JR.
______________________
Case: 21-1535 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2021
2 HARTMAN v. US
PER CURIAM.
Dorothy M. Hartman appeals from the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims’ dismissal of her complaint for lack of sub-
ject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Hartman filed a complaint in the Court of Federal
Claims in July 2020 and an amended complaint in August
2020. The amended complaint, like its predecessor, alleged
various government wrongdoing, much of which related to
Ms. Hartman’s purported inventive efforts that she says
led to the modern internet. These efforts included filing a
patent application with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Of-
fice (“PTO”), which the PTO rejected on grounds of indefi-
niteness under the then-applicable second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. This court affirmed that rejection on ap-
peal. See In re Hartman, 513 F. App’x 955 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
According to the amended complaint’s allegations, the gov-
ernment stole Ms. Hartman’s ideas and used them to en-
rich itself.
The government moved to dismiss the amended com-
plaint, and the Court of Federal Claims did so. Hartman
v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 794 (2020). The court first
observed that Ms. Hartman insisted that she was bringing
claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Id.
at 796–97 (describing several categories of claims that
Ms. Hartman identified as “FTCA claims or charges”). It
then reasoned that it must dismiss such claims under
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) 1 because the Court of Federal
Claims lacks both FTCA jurisdiction and Tucker Act juris-
diction over claims “sounding in tort.” Id. at 797–98 (first
citing U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360,
1 The Rules referenced in this opinion are the Rules
of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Case: 21-1535 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2021
HARTMAN v. US 3
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2013); and then quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1)). The court also noted that it lacked Tucker
Act jurisdiction to the extent that the amended complaint
could be construed as asserting claims against an entity
other than the United States. Id. at 797 n.2 (citing United
States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 588 (1941)); see id. at 797
(describing the amended complaint as chronicling “a series
of tortious and other wrongs . . . which were allegedly com-
mitted by private individuals and corporations[] [and] state
and local governments”).
The Court of Federal Claims additionally determined
that, to the extent the amended complaint included a tak-
ings claim against the federal government, that claim must
be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted. In particular, the court
observed that Ms. Hartman’s “sweeping and conclusory
claims do not provide supporting facts necessary to meet
the level of plausibility required by the Supreme Court’s
decisions in Iqbal and Twombly.” Id. at 798 (citing Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Accordingly, the court
dismissed the amended complaint. Id.
Ms. Hartman appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
We review de novo the Court of Federal Claims’ dismis-
sal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Waltner v.
United States, 679 F.3d 1329, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We
likewise review de novo a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. United States, 704 F.3d 949, 954
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
On appeal, Ms. Hartman continues her attempt to “in-
vok[e] the [c]ourt’s [j]urisdiction under the FTCA.” Reply
Br. 2. She also says that she is bringing tort claims. See
Case: 21-1535 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 09/03/2021
4 HARTMAN v. US
Reply Br. 3. But the Court of Federal Claims lacks both
FTCA jurisdiction and Tucker Act jurisdiction over claims
“sounding in tort.” U.S. Marine, 722 F.3d at 1366 (no
FTCA jurisdiction); Rick’s Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United
States, 521 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (no Tucker Act
jurisdiction over claims “sounding in tort”). The Court of
Federal Claims therefore appropriately dismissed claims
that Ms. Hartman previously characterized as FTCA
claims. 2 Hartman, 150 Fed. Cl. at 797.
Ms. Hartman also alleges error in the PTO’s handling
of her patent application and asks this court to recall its
mandate and overturn its previous decision 3 affirming the
PTO’s rejection of that application. Appellant’s Br. 4, 6–7,
21. But Ms. Hartman has supplied no legitimate basis for
the court to take this extraordinary step. See Calderon v.
Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549–50 (1998) (“In light of ‘the
profound interests in repose’ attaching to the mandate of a
court of appeals, . . . the power [to recall a mandate] can be
exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.” (quoting
16 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3938 (2d ed.
1996))).
Lastly, although Ms. Hartman maintains that she has
properly alleged a taking by the government, we see no er-
ror in the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissing any such
claim under Rule 12(b)(6). To avoid dismissal, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to
2 Because the Court of Federal Claims lacks Tucker
Act jurisdiction over claims against entities other than the
United States, see, e.g., Langan v. United States,
812 F. App’x 982, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Sherwood,
312 U.S. at 588), the court also appropriately dismissed
Ms. Hartman’s claims to the extent they could be construed
as being against entities other than the United States.
3 In re Hartman, 513 F. App’x 955.
Case: 21-1535 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 09/03/2021
HARTMAN v. US 5
relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). We agree with the
Court of Federal Claims that the amended complaint’s
“sweeping and conclusory claims do not provide supporting
facts necessary to meet the level of plausibility required by
the Supreme Court’s decisions in Iqbal and Twombly.”
Hartman, 150 Fed. Cl. at 798. Dismissal was therefore ap-
propriate.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Hartman’s remaining argu-
ments but find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm
the Court of Federal Claims’ decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.