NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F.

HOCKEY, JR. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 21-1535 Document: 44 Page: 1 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 subject-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 Office (“PTO”), which the PTO rejected on grounds of indefiniteness under the then-applicable second paragraph of

35 U.S.C. § 112. This court affirmed that rejection on appeal. See In re Hartman, 513 F. App’x 955 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

According to the amended complaint’s allegations, the government stole Ms. Hartman’s ideas and used them to enrich itself. 

The government moved to dismiss the amended complaint, 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 jurisdiction 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: 2 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 committed 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 takings 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’ dismissal 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 “invok[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: 3 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 decision3 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 error 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: 4 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 appropriate.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Ms. Hartman’s remaining arguments but find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm 

the Court of Federal Claims’ decision. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 21-1535 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 09/03/2021