Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 06/02/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-2226
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01377-PEC, Judge Patricia E. Campbell-
Smith.
______________________
Decided: June 2, 2022
______________________
GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY, Colorado Springs, CO,
pro se.
CHRISTOPHER L. HARLOW, Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.,
LOREN MISHA PREHEIM.
______________________
Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2022
2 PODLUCKY v. US
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and HUGHES,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Joseph Podlucky appeals a decision of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his com-
plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because
Mr. Podlucky’s claims fall outside the scope of the Court of
Federal Claims’ jurisdiction, we affirm.
I
In 2009, Mr. Podlucky was charged with various fraud-
based offenses stemming from his management of LeNa-
ture’s, Inc., a beverage company. Mem. Op. at 1, United
States v. Podlucky, No. 2:09-cr-278 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24,
2021), ECF No. 151 (W.D. Pa. Decision). During the inves-
tigation of those matters, the government seized various
pieces of jewelry. In 2011, Mr. Podlucky entered into a plea
agreement with the government and pled guilty to several
charges. He was sentenced by the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Following
his guilty plea, Mr. Podlucky filed several requests for col-
lateral relief in his criminal cases, including a claim that
his plea agreement required the government to return cer-
tain pieces of jewelry it had seized. The district court disa-
greed with Mr. Podlucky’s interpretation of the plea
agreement, ruling that there had been no “meeting of the
minds between [Mr. Podlucky] and the [g]overnment as to
the pieces to be returned.” Id. at 10.
Mr. Podlucky then filed this suit in the Court of Fed-
eral Claims, again seeking the return of the jewelry. He
again alleged that, as part of his plea agreement, the gov-
ernment agreed to return to him some of the seized items.
Mr. Podlucky requested that the Court of Federal Claims
direct the government to return the seized items, or alter-
natively, “[i]f the [items] are not available for said return-
ing then the cost basis of $4,809,894 of the [items] as stated
Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 06/02/2022
PODLUCKY v. US 3
herein be ordered for tendering to [Mr. Podlucky].” Appel-
lant’s Br. at 47. 1
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Podlucky’s
complaint, holding that none of his claims were within its
jurisdiction. Podlucky v. United States, No. 21-1377C,
2021
WL 2627130, at *3 (Fed. Cl. June 25, 2021). Mr. Podlucky
appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Trusted Integra-
tion, Inc. v. United States,
659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). As the plaintiff, Mr. Podlucky bears the burden
of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evi-
dence. Brandt v. United States,
710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed.
Cir. 2013). Although we give pro se plaintiffs more latitude
in their pleadings than parties represented by counsel, Es-
telle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), such leniency does
not relieve them of jurisdictional requirements, Kelley v.
Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Lab.,
812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
The Tucker Act, codified at
28 U.S.C. § 1491, limits the
Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction to “claims for money
damages against the United States.” Fisher v. United
States,
402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Tucker
Act alone does not supply an independent source of action;
“a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive
law that creates the right to money damages.”
Id. “[T]he
absence of a money-mandating source [is] fatal to the
court’s jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.” Id. at 1173.
1 “Appellant’s Br. at __” refers to pages in Mr. Pod-
lucky’s combined informal brief and appendix, Informal
Brief of Appellant, Podlucky v. United States, No. 21-2226
(Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2021), ECF No. 8.
Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 06/02/2022
4 PODLUCKY v. US
The Court of Federal Claims may hear a claim for an
“alleged breach of an agreement with a criminal defend-
ant . . . only if the agreement clearly and unmistakably
subjects the United States to monetary liability for any
breach.” Sanders v. United States,
252 F.3d 1329, 1331
(Fed. Cir. 2001). While “[i]t [is] possible to make a binding
contract subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction, creating a lia-
bility for breach of a plea bargaining agreement[,] . . . such
liability should not be implied, and could exist only if there
was an unmistakable promise to subject the United States
to monetary liability.”
Id. at 1336. This further requires
that “the prosecutors had authority to enter into such an
agreement.”
Id. Mr. Podlucky’s plea agreement lacks the
“unmistakable promise” required to subject the United
States to monetary liability because, as the District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania has already con-
cluded, there was no “meeting of the minds” between the
government and Mr. Podlucky as to what jewelry was to be
returned. W.D. Pa. Decision at 10. Without monetary lia-
bility, the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over
Mr. Podlucky’s claims.
The appropriate forum for Mr. Podlucky’s claims re-
garding the alleged breach of his plea agreement was the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, as “the Supreme Court has made clear that
claims for breach of plea agreements and other agreements
unique to the criminal justice system should be brought in
the courts in which they were negotiated and executed.”
Sanders,
252 F.3d at 1336 (citing Santobello v. New York,
404 U.S. 257, 263 (1971)). Mr. Podlucky correctly brought
these claims before that district court, and the district
court considered and rejected them, “finding, as a matter
of law, that the parties had not entered into an enforceable
agreement as to the return of any jewelry.” W.D. Pa. Deci-
sion at 10. Mr. Podlucky appealed that decision, and the
Third Circuit dismissed his appeal. United States v.
Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 06/02/2022
PODLUCKY v. US 5
Podlucky, No. 21-2015,
2021 WL 5860751, at *1 (3d Cir.
Aug. 24, 2021).
III
Because Mr. Podlucky’s claims are outside the jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Federal Claims, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
No costs.
