Podlucky v. United States

Case: 22-1319 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 07/26/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY, KARLA SUE
PODLUCKY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1319
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01686-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
Decided: July 26, 2022
______________________
GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY, Colorado Springs, CO,
pro se.
KARLA SUE PODLUCKY, Colorado Springs, CO, pro se.
KARA WESTERCAMP, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
Case: 22-1319 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 07/26/2022
2 PODLUCKY v. US
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Gregory Joseph Podlucky and Karla Sue Podlucky ap-
peal a decision of the United States Court of Federal
Claims dismissing their complaint for lack of subject-mat-
ter jurisdiction. Because the Podluckys did not file their
complaint within six years of their claim’s accrual, we af-
firm.
BACKGROUND
This is the second case we have heard this year involv-
ing Mr. Podlucky and his jewelry. Podlucky v. United
States, No. 2021-2226, 2022 WL 1791065 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
(non-precedential). We presume familiarity with the ear-
lier case and recite only the facts necessary to resolve this
case.
In 2011, Mr. Podlucky pleaded guilty to tax evasion,
mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
United States v. Podlucky, No. CR 09-278, 2021 WL
1124907, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2021) (W.D. Pa. Deci-
sion). As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Podlucky agreed
to forfeit “all pieces of gems and jewelry that were seized
as evidence during the investigation and are currently in
the possession of the United States . . . , with the exception
of certain personal pieces to be agreed upon by the parties.”
United States v. Podlucky, No. CR 09-278, 2017 WL
3394142, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2017) (emphasis added).
In 2017, Mr. Podlucky sought an order from the district
court requiring the government to return certain personal
pieces of jewelry. W.D. Pa. Decision, 2021 WL 1124907, at
*5. The district court denied the request, holding there was
not “any meeting of the minds between [Mr. Podlucky] and
the Government as to the pieces to be returned.” Id. The
Case: 22-1319 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 07/26/2022
PODLUCKY v. US 3
Third Circuit affirmed. United States v. Podlucky, No. 21-
2015, 2021 WL 5860751, at *1 (3d Cir. Aug. 24, 2021)
In 2021, Mr. and Mrs. Podlucky sued the United
States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the
government’s seizure of their jewelry was a taking in vio-
lation of the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Federal
Claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Among other reasons, it explained that the Podluckys’
claim was barred by the six-year statute of limitations.
Podlucky v. United States, No. 21-1686C, 2021 WL
6058874, at *6 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 22, 2021) (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 2501) (Federal Claims Court Decision). The Podluckys
appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
We review the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Trusted Inte-
gration, Inc. v. United States, 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). The Court of Federal Claims did not err. The
Podluckys allege that the taking of their jewelry occurred
in 2006 and 2007. Federal Claims Court Decision, 2021 WL
6058874, at *6. Yet they did not file their complaint until
2021. A Tucker Act claim must be brought within six years
of its accrual. 28 U.S.C. § 2501; Jones v. United States, 30
F.4th 1094, 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2022). This requirement is ju-
risdictional and not subject to equitable tolling. Young v.
United States, 529 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 750,
753–57 (2008)). Because the Podluckys did not file their
complaint within six years of the alleged taking, we affirm
the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Appellants shall bear costs.