Case: 22-1955 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2022
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DOROTHY M. HARTMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1955
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-02214-MCW, Senior Judge Mary Ellen Cos-
ter Williams.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Dorothy M. Hartman submits a document challenging
the court’s September 16, 2022, notice that her opening
brief and appendix are not compliant with the court’s rules.
The document further argues that she is “owed a Default
Judgment by law.” ECF No. 15 at 2. Ms. Hartman has
since moved to withdraw ECF No. 15, but continues to chal-
lenge the notice of non-compliance, ECF No. 17. We
Case: 22-1955 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2022
2 HARTMAN v. US
construe Ms. Hartman’s filings as a motion to accept her
non-conforming opening brief and appendix. We accept
Ms. Hartman’s non-conforming opening brief and appendix
for filing and, after careful review of her submissions, con-
clude that summary affirmance is appropriate.
The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed,
concluding that Ms. Hartman’s “complaint [in this case] is
substantively identical to the complaint in her 2020 case
that the Court of Federal Claims dismissed ‘without leave
to replead’ and [we] affirmed” in Hartman v. United States,
No. 2021-1535 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2021), and any claims that
the judges and Government attorneys involved in her 2020
case defamed and discredited her were outside of the
court’s limited jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 16 at 2–3.
Ms. Hartman’s submissions provide no cognizable,
non-frivolous argument that the Court of Federal Claims
erred in dismissing her complaint. The trial court correctly
recognized that she is precluded from relitigating claims
previously raised (and resolved) in Hartman, No. 2021-
1535, ECF No. 44. And the trial court was clearly correct
that it generally lacks jurisdiction over tort claims, 28
U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and claims “against individual federal
officials,” Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
We therefore summarily affirm. Joshua v. United
States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that
“summary disposition is appropriate, inter alia, when the
position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law
that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the
appeal exists”).
Accordingly,
Case: 22-1955 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2022
HARTMAN v. US 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Ms. Hartman’s opening brief and appendix, ECF
No. 12, are accepted for filing.
(2) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment dismissing
Ms. Hartman’s claims is summarily affirmed.
(3) Any other pending motions are denied as moot.
(4) Each party shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
November 9, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court