NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. CampbellSmith.

______________________ 

Decided: June 2, 2022

______________________ 

GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY, Colorado Springs, CO, 

pro se.

 CHRISTOPHER L. HARLOW, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.,

LOREN MISHA PREHEIM. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 1 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 complaint 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 fraudbased offenses stemming from his management of LeNature’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 investigation 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 collateral relief in his criminal cases, including a claim that 

his plea agreement required the government to return certain pieces of jewelry it had seized. The district court disagreed 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 Federal Claims, again seeking the return of the jewelry. He 

again alleged that, as part of his plea agreement, the government 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 alternatively, “[i]f the [items] are not available for said returning then the cost basis of $4,809,894 of the [items] as stated 

Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2022
PODLUCKY v. US 3

herein be ordered for tendering to [Mr. Podlucky].” Appellant’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 Integration, 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 evidence. 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, Estelle 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. Podlucky’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: 3 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 defendant . . . 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 liability 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 concluded, 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 liability, the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over 

Mr. Podlucky’s claims. 

The appropriate forum for Mr. Podlucky’s claims regarding 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. Decision at 10. Mr. Podlucky appealed that decision, and the 

Third Circuit dismissed his appeal. United States v. 

Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 4 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 jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

No costs.

Case: 21-2226 Document: 29 Page: 5 Filed: 06/02/2022