Lee Michael Tomko v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LEE MICHAEL TOMKO,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1312
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:24-cv-00773-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank
Horn.
______________________
Decided: July 11, 2025
______________________
L EE MICHAEL T OMKO, Kissimmee, FL, pro se.
CATHERINE M. YANG, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
D EBORAH A NN BYNUM , P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , BRETT
SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 25-1312 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 07/11/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

TOMKO v. US 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, P ROST and REYNA, Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Lee Michael Tomko appeals pro se a judgment of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Fed-
eral Claims. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In May 2024, Lee Michael Tomko (“Mr. Tomko”) filed a
complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims
(“Claims Court”), “alleging breach of contract and seeking
enforcement of an alleged contract with the United States
government.” Tomko v. United States, No. 24-773C,
2024 WL 5279873, at *1 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 2, 2024). In Au-
gust 2024, Mr. Tomko filed an amended complaint, in
which he claimed (A) that the United States breached con-
tracts with him or to which he is a third-party beneficiary;
and (B) numerous other “significant issues,” including def-
amation by the United States. SAppx20–47.1 Based on
these claims, Mr. Tomko asserted that the United States
owes him $23 billion. SAppx25.
Mr. Tomko alleged two breach of contract claims.
First, he alleged that President Donald Trump and Chris-
topher Wray, then-Director of the Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation (“FBI”), entered into a written contract “to resolve
significant issues with an FBI investigation involving
[him].” SAppx24, SAppx26. Mr. Tomko alleged that he is
a “third-party beneficiary of the contract,” and that “[t]he
terms of the contract include: payment of money in any
1 “SAppx” refers to the supplemental appendix ac-
companying the Appellee’s informal response brief.
Case: 25-1312 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 07/11/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

TOMKO v. US 3
amount to [him], an increase of $2 million every time the
FBI took any kind of action in this matter, [and an] agree-
ment to permanently end investigation of [him].”
SAppx26–27. Second, Mr. Tomko alleged that “[a]dditional
non-written contracts were created between [him] and the
White House Investigations Advisor to the [P]resident” for
“money, of any amount.” SAppx29.
Neither Mr. Tomko nor the United States provided the
Claims Court with a copy of the alleged written contract.
See Tomko, 2024 WL 5279873, at *1. Mr. Tomko admitted
that he “wasn’t there when the contract was created and
signed” and that he had not “seen or read the contract,” but
he claimed he had “been told that it exists, [that it] is legit-
imate, and [that it includes] the details above” about the
content of the contract. Appellant Inf. Br. 39 (attachment
excerpting Mr. Tomko’s Response to Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint); SAppx27. Mr. Tomko asserted that
he knew of the existence and content of the alleged con-
tracts because “[g]overnment employees (and others) have
been communicating through [his] computer, household
electronic devices, and other methods,” for example, using
“[o]bvious hacking of [his] web browser where the screen
will automatically scroll to a section that has signaling
words or phrases.” SAppx39–43.
In August 2024, the United States moved to dismiss
Mr. Tomko’s amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction un-
der Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of
Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and, in the alternative, failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
RCFC 12(b)(6). See Tomko, 2024 WL 5279873, at *3. In
December 2024, the Claims Court granted the motion and
dismissed the amended complaint. Id. at *12. With re-
spect to the contract claims, the Claims Court decided that
the amended complaint failed to establish jurisdiction and
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id.
at *9–11. The Claims Court reached these two conclusions
based on “many of the same reasons,” namely, that
Case: 25-1312 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 07/11/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

TOMKO v. US 4
Mr. Tomko “allege[d] a variety of implausible facts” that
were “speculative” and “fanciful.” Id. With respect to the
defamation claims, the Claims Court decided that it “does
not have jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims sounding in
tort.” Id. at *11.
Mr. Tomko appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the Claims Court’s decision as to
whether a complaint failed to state a claim upon which re-
lief can be granted. B.H. Aircraft Co. Inc. v. United States,
89 F.4th 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2024). “To survive a motion
to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual mat-
ter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plau-
sible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quotations and citation omitted).
We review the Claims Court’s decision on subject mat-
ter jurisdiction de novo. Allen v. United States, 88 F.4th
983, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “We give pro se plaintiffs more
latitude in their pleadings than a party represented by
counsel,” but this “does not relieve a plaintiff of jurisdic-
tional requirements.” Roman v. United States, 61 F.4th
1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
D ISCUSSION
Mr. Tomko argues that the Claims Court should not
have dismissed his amended complaint, because it stated
claims upon which relief can be granted. Appellant Inf.
Br. 2. According to Mr. Tomko, his amended complaint
was “detailed and plausible.” Id. However, Mr. Tomko’s
assertions with respect to the contract claims, as detailed
above, are, in the Claims Court’s language, “fanciful.”
Tomko, 2024 WL 5279873, at *10–11. As such,
Mr. Tomko’s assertions fail to “nudge[]” the contract claims
“across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Ashcroft,
556 U.S. at 680 (quotations and citation omitted). Thus,
Case: 25-1312 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 07/11/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

TOMKO v. US 5
with respect to the contract claims, the amended complaint
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Meanwhile, the defamation claims are tort claims over
which the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1); Allen, 88 F.4th at 986.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Tomko’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal of Mr. Tomko’s
amended complaint.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1312 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 07/11/2025

-- 5 of 5 --