NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-5057 

SAM FRANKLIN THOMAS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Sam Franklin Thomas, of Huntsville, Alabama, pro se. 

Scott Bolden, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With him on 

the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and John J. Fargo, Director. 

 Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Senior Judge Eric Bruggink 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

 

2007-5057 

SAM FRANKLIN THOMAS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________ 

 DECIDED: August 8, 2007 

___________________________ 

Before RADER, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed with prejudice Mr. Sam Franklin 

Thomas's claim that the government is liable for copyright infringement. Sam Franklin 

Thomas v. The United States, Order No. 06-822C (Fed. Cl. 2006). Mr. Thomas 

previously brought this same suit on February 2, 2002. The Court of Federal Claims 

dismissed the 2002 suit on May 23, 2002. Mr. Thomas appealed and our court 

affirmed. See Thomas v. United States, 60 Fed.Appx. 279 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The United 
States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari. Thomas v. United States, 540 

U.S. 902 (2003). On December 4, 2006, Mr. Thomas again filed the same copyright 

infringement claim in the Court of Federal Claims. In his one-page complaint, Mr. 

Thomas stated that his "claim was never [given] a hearing in the Federal Claim[s] 

Court." The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint with prejudice based on 

res judicata. Sam Franklin Thomas v. The United States, Order No. 06-822C (Fed. Cl. 

2006). Mr. Thomas for a second time appeals the dismissal of his complaint. This court 

again affirms. 

I 

In his original suit, Mr. Thomas brought an action in the Court of Federal Claims 

for copyright infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Mr. Thomas alleged that the United 

States Postal Service ("USPS") used his idea for a postcard commemorating Dr. Martin 

Luther King, Jr. On May 23, 2002, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Thomas's 

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A previous 

panel of this court reviewed the merits of Mr. Thomas's complaint and affirmed the 

Court of Federal Claims dismissal because, inter alia, "Mr. Thomas improperly claimed 

copyright infringement based on the idea of featuring Dr. King on a postcard rather than 

infringement based on the copyrighted expression. The protection granted to a 

copyrighted work extends only to the particular expression of the idea, not to the idea 

itself." Thomas v. United States, 60 Fed.Appx. 279, 280 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Mr. Thomas then filed a new complaint based on the same copyright 

infringement claim. In this new complaint, Mr. Thomas argues that he was entitled to 

present an oral argument to the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims 

2007-5057 2
again dismissed Mr. Thomas's complaint. Now, Mr. Thomas appeals this second 

dismissal to this court. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). 

II 

Mr. Thomas's complaint to the Court of Federal Claims is barred by res judicata. 

The applicability of res judicata is a question of law that this court reviews without 

deference. Case v. United States, 88 F.3d 1004, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The doctrine of 

res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits a plaintiff from bringing multiple actions on the 

same claim. See Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981). The 

doctrine of res judicata bars a case where "(1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) 

the first suit proceeded to a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the second claim is 

based on the same set of transactional facts as the first." Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 

334 F.3d 1052, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

This case satisfies each of the elements for res judicata. First, the same party, 

Mr. Thomas, has brought both suits. Second, the first suit proceeded to a final 

judgment on the merits when the 2002 claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim. 

The court explained then that copyright law protects expression, not ideas. Thomas, 60 

Fed.Appx. at 280. Third, Mr. Thomas's second complaint, identical to the first 

complaint, claimed that he was entitled to $20 million in compensation for alleged 

copyright infringement by the USPS. Therefore, Mr. Thomas's second complaint is 

based on the same set of facts as his first complaint. 

On appeal, Mr. Thomas seeks an oral argument before the Court of Federal 

Claims. However, the Court of Federal Claims provided Mr. Thomas with a full and fair 

opportunity to present his originally filed complaint. This full and fair opportunity does 

2007-5057 3
2007-5057 4

not guarantee a right to present oral argument. Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12 only requires a party be provided the opportunity to present its views. 

"Every circuit to consider the issue has determined that the 'hearing' requirements of 

Rule 12 and Rule 56 do not mean that an oral hearing is necessary, but only require 

that a party be given the opportunity to present its views to the court." Greene v. WCI 

Holdings Corp., 136 F.3d 313, 316 (2d Cir. 1998) (Citing Lujan v. National Wildlife 

Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 910, (1990)). 

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing 

Mr. Thomas's complaint is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED