NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 Justic e, of Washington, DC, for def endant-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 Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge Eric BrugginkNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 dismi ssed 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 Febr uary 2, 2002. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the 2002 suit on Ma y 23, 2002. Mr. Thomas appealed and our court affirmed. See Thomas v. United States , 60 Fed.Appx. 279 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The UnitedStates 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 Co urt 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 dism issed 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 t he 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 Cla ims 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. Thom as improperly claimed copyright infringement based on the idea of featuring Dr. Ki ng on a postcard rather than infringement based on the copyrighted expres sion. The protection granted to a copyrighted work extends only to the particula r expression of the idea, not to the idea itself." Thomas v. United States , 60 Fed.Appx. 279, 28 0 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Mr. Thomas then filed a new compla int based on the same copyright infringement claim. In this new complaint, Mr. Thomas argues that he was entitled to present an oral argument to t he Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims

2007-5057 2again 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 Fe deral Claims is barred by res judicata. The applicability of res judicata is a questi on 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 brin ging 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 ca se where "(1) the parties are id entical 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 judica ta. 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 la w 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. Theref ore, Mr. Thomas's second complaint is based on the same set of fact s as his first complaint. On appeal, Mr. Thomas seeks an oral ar gument before the Court of Federal Claims. However, the Court of Federal Claims provided Mr. Thomas with a full and fair opportunity to present his orig inally filed complaint. This full and fair opportunity does

2007-5057 32007-5057 4 not guarantee a right to present oral argument. Specifical ly, 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 'hear ing' 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