Case: 22-1328 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 07/26/2022
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GREGORY JOSEPH PODLUCKY,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1328
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-01634-RAH, Judge Richard A. Hertling.
______________________
Decided: July 26, 2022
______________________
GREGORY JOSEPH 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: 22-1328 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 07/26/2022
2 PODLUCKY v. US
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STARK, 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 fails to identify a money-mandating source of
substantive law for his claim, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
This is our third case this year involving Mr. Podlucky.
Podlucky v. United States, No. 2021-2226, 2022 WL
1791065 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (non-precedential); Podlucky v.
United States, No. 2022-1319 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2022). We
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). In 2019, after his
case closed, Mr. Podlucky requested entry of a $22.5 billion
default judgment against the United States, reasoning it
failed to respond to various motions and filings. Entering
a Default Judgment by the Clerk, United States v. Pod-
lucky, No. CR 09-279 (W.D. Pa. July 16, 2019), ECF No. 525
at 20. Apparently believing that the district court had en-
tered such judgment and thus “cur[ed] all delictual faults,”
Mr. Podlucky withdrew all of his pending motions and fil-
ings. Withdrawal of All Petitions, Motions, Judicial No-
tices and Other Pleadings, United States v. Podlucky, No.
CR 09-279 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2021), ECF No. 543 at 1. Mr.
Podlucky did not appeal.
In 2021, Mr. Podlucky sued the United States in the
Court of Federal Claims, seeking to enforce the supposed
default judgment. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that
there was “no default judgment that a judge has entered”
Case: 22-1328 Document: 19 Page: 3 Filed: 07/26/2022
PODLUCKY v. US 3
and that, even if there were, enforcement of it would be
outside the Court of Federal Claims’ authority. Podlucky
v. United States, No. 21-1634C, 2021 WL 6058866, at *5–6
(Fed. Cl. Dec. 22, 2021). Mr. Podlucky appeals. 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 Tucker Act, 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 a substantive cause of action; “a
plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law
that creates the right to money damages.” Id.
Even if there were a default judgment to enforce, Mr.
Podlucky fails to identify a money-mandating source of
substantive law for his claim. He cites “the Constitution”
but does not identify any specific provision that allegedly
applies. Podlucky Br. 77. Nor are we aware of any appli-
cable provision. “[T]he absence of a money-mandating
source [is] fatal to the [Court of Federal Claims’] jurisdic-
tion under the Tucker Act.” Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1173. Ac-
cordingly, we affirm the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Appellant shall bear costs.