`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
`
`O R D E R
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
