Dimitar Petlechkov v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DIMITAR PETLECHKOV,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1098
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:23-cv-01789-MRS, Judge Molly R. Silfen.
______________________
Decided: October 10, 2025
______________________
D IMITAR P ETLECHKOV , Atlanta, GA, pro se.
REBECCA T AYLOR MITCHELL , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by T ARA K. HOGAN, P ATRICIA M. MCC ARTHY , YAAKOV
ROTH .
______________________
Before T ARANTO, STOLL , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 1 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
In 2018, Dimitar Petlechkov was convicted of mail
fraud in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee. In the follow-on criminal forfeiture
proceedings, the district court awarded the United States
a money judgment. In 2023, Mr. Petlechkov sued the
United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims
(Claims Court), seeking compensation for an alleged Fifth
Amendment taking or illegal exaction based on the asser-
tion that the government temporarily seized real property
of his that exceeded the value of this money judgment. The
Claims Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Petlechkov v. United States, 173 Fed.
Cl. 20 (2024) (2024 CFC Decision). We affirm.
I
A
In 2017, Mr. Petlechkov was indicted on twenty counts
of mail fraud in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tenneessee and was convicted on all
counts in spring 2018. Indictment, United States v. Petle-
chkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2017), ECF
No. 2 (Petlechkov); Verdict Form, Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-
20344 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 4, 2018), ECF No. 64. In July 2018,
the district court held a forfeiture hearing and entered a
money judgment that Mr. Petlechkov must pay the govern-
ment $367,099.62. Order on Forfeiture Hearing, Petle-
chkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. July 12, 2018), ECF
No. 104. The district court issued a preliminary forfeiture
order authorizing the government to seize Mr. Petlechkov’s
assets, including real property, to satisfy the judgment.
Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-
20344 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 9, 2018), ECF No. 122. Three
properties in Atlanta, Georgia, were included: one located
on 19th Street, and two located on Peachtree Road. Mr.
Petlechkov was then sentenced to thirty-seven months of
imprisonment, and the government was awarded
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 2 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 3
$801,219.02 in restitution in addition to the money judg-
ment. Redacted J., Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D.
Tenn. Aug. 31, 2018), ECF No. 132.
Mr. Petlechkov appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which (1) vacated conviction
on seventeen counts while affirming on the remaining
three counts and (2) remanded the case for sentencing and
recalculation of the judgment. United States v. Petlechkov,
922 F.3d 762, 770–71 (6th Cir. 2019) (Petlechkov I). On re-
mand, the district court entered the same money judgment
against Mr. Petlechkov and awarded the government the
same restitution. Second Amended Redacted Judgment,
Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. July 7, 2020),
ECF No. 245. The district court issued another prelimi-
nary forfeiture order, permitting the government to seize
Mr. Petlechkov’s real property. Preliminary Order of For-
feiture, Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. July 9,
2020), ECF No. 248 at 2. Mr. Petlechkov appealed, and the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the awards. United States v. Petle-
chkov, Nos. 21-5174/5199, 2022 WL 168651, at *4–5 (6th
Cir. Jan. 19, 2022) (Petlechkov II).
The district court then issued what it deemed a final
forfeiture order, which stated that “the United States shall
have clear title” to Mr. Petlechkov’s three properties and
may liquidate the properties to satisfy the money judgment
and the restitution order. Final Order of Forfeiture, Petle-
chkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 14, 2022), ECF
No. 306 at 5. According to Mr. Petlechkov in the case now
before us, the government then seized his three Georgia
properties, on or about March 8, 2022. Complaint, Petle-
chkov v. United States, No. 23-1789 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 10, 2023),
ECF No. 1 at ¶ 7 (Complaint). Mr. Petlechkov appealed the
final forfeiture order to the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit vacated one provision in the final for-
feiture order concerning restitution but otherwise upheld
the order. United States v. Petlechkov, 72 F.4th 699, 706–
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 3 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 4
07 (6th Cir. 2023), rehearing denied, Nos. 22-6043/6044,
2023 WL 5498389 (6th Cir. July 6, 2023) (Petlechkov III).
Regarding the order’s money-judgment provisions: The
Sixth Circuit held that Mr. Petlechkov “lost his interest in
[the] properties to the extent needed to satisfy the money
judgment” because the preliminary forfeiture order was af-
firmed in Petlechkov II, and he, therefore, would not be “in-
jured when the final order disposes of those properties to
satisfy the money judgment.” Id. at 705. Regarding a res-
titution provision in the final order: The Sixth Circuit ruled
that the order failed to identify an authority enabling the
district court “to order the sale of property to satisfy a res-
titution award.” Id. at 706; see id. at 706–07. The Sixth
Circuit added: “On remand, the [district] court may reorder
the liquidation of the excess property [to satisfy the resti-
tution award] so long as it follows any applicable statutory
requirements.” Id at 707. The Sixth Circuit vacated the
provision of the final forfeiture order concerning the liqui-
dation of property to satisfy the restitution award. Id. at
711.
On remand, the district court issued an amended final
order of forfeiture, authorizing the government to seize Mr.
Petlechkov’s three Georgia properties to satisfy the money
judgment. Amended Final Order of Forfeiture, Petlechkov,
No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2023), ECF No. 427
at 3–5. The district court determined that the government
has “clear title to the subject property and shall dispose of
the property according to law.” Id. at 5.
A week later, Mr. Petlechkov appealed, arguing that
the order did not comply with the mandate in Petlechkov
III because it “did not release property exceeding the for-
feiture amount.” Order, United States v. Petlechkov,
No. 23-5803 (6th Cir. June 21, 2024), ECF No. 40 at 4
(Petlechkov IV). The Sixth Circuit rejected the premise of
the argument and affirmed. It explained that the district
court complied with the mandate in Petlechkov III by re-
moving the restitution provision, and the forfeiture order
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 4 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 4 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 5
actually did “not forfeit anything in excess of the [ ] money
judgment.” Id. at 6. “The order’s reference to the three real
properties is purely conditional, stating . . . the government
‘shall be entitled to forfeiture’ of . . . the listed real proper-
ties ‘up to the value’ of the money judgment. [T]he order
does not immediately entitle the government to the real
properties.” Id. (emphasis in original) (cleaned up). The
government may “request forfeiture . . . of the real proper-
ties as substitute property” for the money judgment, and
“[o]nce entered, an order of forfeiture itself forfeits the sub-
ject property.” Id. at 7 (emphasis in original). The Sixth
Circuit also noted that Mr. Petlechkov may ask the district
court to address any concerns he may have about whether
the “government’s conduct is inconsistent with the district
court’s order as [the Sixth Circuit has] interpreted it” be-
cause the district court “retain[ed] jurisdiction” in the
amended final forfeiture order to enforce the order. Id. at
8 (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted). The
Sixth Circuit added that it was “express[ing] no view on
whether there exist any statutory bases for the government
to seize or otherwise restrain substitute property prior to
the entry of an order of forfeiture as to that property.” Id.
at 8 n.1.
The government moved to amend the final forfeiture
order, seeking forfeiture of the 19th Street property and
$45,225 of the associated, collected rental revenue. Motion
to Amend Final Order of Forfeiture to Forfeit Substitute
Assets and for Associated Miscellaneous Relief, Petlechkov,
No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 5, 2024), ECF No. 494.
In the motion, the government also sought to release the
Peachtree Road properties from government custody to a
third-party custodian due to an ownership dispute among
Mr. Petlechkov and a third-party claimant. Id. at 14. Half
a year later, the district court ordered that (1) the govern-
ment could retain possession of the 19th Street property
pending the ruling on the motion to amend the forfeiture
order; (2) the government and the third-party claimant
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 5 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 5 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 6
could not market or sell the 19th Street property; and
(3) the government must release the two Peachtree proper-
ties to the third-party claimant. Order on Government’s
Motion for Temporary Possession and Other Motions,
Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2025),
ECF No. 538 at 9–10. Mr. Petlechkov appealed that day.
Notice of Appeal from Final J., Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-20344
(W.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2025), ECF No. 540.
A week later, the district court ordered that Mr. Petle-
chkov “not pursue any collateral state action” concerning
the 19th Street property before the district court ruled on
multiple pending motions. Order on Various Motions at 16,
Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2025),
ECF No. 543. On March 14, 2025, the government an-
nounced that it surrendered the Peachtree Road proper-
ties. Notice of Compliance with Court Order Regarding
Transfer of Possession, Petlechkov, No. 17-cr-20344 (W.D.
Tenn. Mar. 14, 2025), ECF No. 547. Mr. Petlechkov has
since filed multiple appeals regarding the Georgia proper-
ties.
B
Mr. Petlechkov filed the present action in the Claims
Court on October 10, 2023, after the amended final forfei-
ture order but before the Sixth Circuit’s ruling on appeal
from that order. See 2024 CFC Decision, 173 Fed. Cl. at 23.
Mr. Petlechkov asserted a takings claim under the Fifth
Amendment or, alternatively, a claim of illegal exaction,
seeking compensation from the government for (1) the
value of seized property in excess of the district court’s
money judgment and (2) the associated rents collected and
rental revenue forgone. The government moved to dismiss
the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The gov-
ernment argued that the district court had exclusive juris-
diction over claims arising from a criminal forfeiture
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1355; the Claims Court
lacked jurisdiction to review the decisions of the district
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 6 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 6 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 7
court; and Mr. Petlechkov had not conceded the validity of
the government’s actions as an asserted precondition to re-
covering on a takings claim.
On August 21, 2024, the Claims Court dismissed Mr.
Petlechkov’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be-
cause the Claims Court cannot review the “district court’s
and Sixth Circuit’s determinations.” 2024 CFC Decision,
173 Fed. Cl. at 24–25 (citing Allustiarte v. United States,
256 F.3d 1349, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The Claims
Court observed that it may also lack jurisdiction to review
Mr. Petlechkov’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1355(a), a juris-
dictional statute, but declined to decide the issue. 2024
CFC Decision, 173 Fed. Cl. at 25. The Claims Court noted
that Mr. Petlechkov may seek relief before the district
court. Id. at 26.
Mr. Petlechkov timely appealed. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
II
We review the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction de novo
because the Claims Court based its decision on undisputed
material facts. Banks v. United States, 741 F.3d 1268,
1275 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Claims Court is a court of “lim-
ited jurisdiction.” United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392,
397–98 (1976) (internal citations omitted). The jurisdic-
tional statute of relevance here is the Tucker Act, which
gives the Claims Court jurisdiction over monetary claims
against the United States “founded either upon the Consti-
tution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an exec-
utive department, or upon any express or implied contract
with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated
damages in cases not sounding in tort.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(a)(1). For two related reasons, we hold that the
Claims Court correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
It is a well-established principle that the Claims Court
(which is not an Article III court) lacks “jurisdiction to
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 7 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 7 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 8
review the decisions of district courts[.]” Joshua v. United
States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Shinnecock In-
dian Nation v. United States, 782 F.3d 1345, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2015). “Article III forbids the Court of Federal Claims,
an Article I tribunal, from reviewing the actions of an Ar-
ticle III court[.]” Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296
F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Claims Court “can-
not entertain a taking claim that requires the court to scru-
tinize the actions of another tribunal.” Id. (internal
quotation marks deleted); see Vereda Ltda. v. United
States, 271 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Allustiarte,
256 F.3d at 1352.
Adjudicating Mr. Petlechkov’s claim here could readily
call on the Claims Court to resolve disputes about the scope
and correctness of rulings of the district court and possibly
of the Sixth Circuit, including future rulings in the ongoing
proceedings. The parties’ filings reflect such disputes, the
resolution of which could easily bear on what was seized,
under what authority, and with what consequences. Cf.
Jenkins v. United States, 71 F.4th 1367, 1373–74 & n.4
(Fed. Cir. 2023) (whether takings liability is present may
take account of relation of government action to “valid and
lawful forfeiture proceedings”). Indeed, as of the date the
government’s brief was filed, the government explained
that the criminal forfeiture proceedings remained under-
way and Mr. Petlechkov has filed several appeals concern-
ing the Georgia property, which Mr. Petlechkov does not
dispute. Government Br. at 11 & n.7, 17. Mr. Petlechkov
also does not dispute that he petitioned the district court
for relief, related to the government’s seizure, that overlaps
with the relief he seeks before the Claims Court. Govern-
ment Br. at 17; Complaint at ¶¶ 23–25. Accordingly, the
case more closely resembles Vereda and Allustiarte, where
we found no jurisdiction, than it does Boise Cascade, where
we found jurisdiction because the claim did “not require the
trial court to review the district court’s actions.” Compare
Vereda, 271 F.3d at 1375 and Allustiarte, 256 F.3d at 1352,
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 8 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 8 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 9
with Boise Cascade, 296 F.3d at 1344. Exercising Tucker
Act jurisdiction here “would circumvent the statutorily de-
fined appellate process and severely undercut the orderly
resolution of claims.” Shinnecock, 782 F.3d at 1353.
Relatedly, in various circumstances where a “specific
and comprehensive scheme” for review of a matter is pro-
vided by Congress outside the Tucker Act, the Claims
Court’s “Tucker Act jurisdiction over the subject matter
covered by the scheme is preempted.” Vereda, 271 F.3d at
1375 (internal citations omitted); see also United States
v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 12–13 (2012). That principle covers
this particular matter, given the Sixth Circuit’s ruling
about the availability of at least some relief from the dis-
trict court in this matter, reflected in the ongoing proceed-
ings in the district court and Sixth Circuit. See Petlechkov
IV, at 8 (citing United States v. Ford, 64 F. App’x 976 (6th
Cir. 2003) (analyzing “assessment and crediting of interest
on seized [property] that was not ordered forfeited”)); see
also 2024 CFC Decision, 173 Fed. Cl. at 26 (“[T]he district
court does have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Petlechkov’s re-
quest for damages as a result of an alleged due process vi-
olation[.]”).
We have previously determined that the Claims Court
lacks jurisdiction over a civil (in rem) forfeiture of property,
Vereda, 271 F.3d at 1375; Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United
States, 632 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2011), and we have
at least suggested a similar conclusion about a criminal for-
feiture, Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1477 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). And here, the claimant is a party to the crimi-
nal forfeiture proceeding, in which relief may be sought.
The foregoing reasons suffice to reject subject matter
jurisdiction. We need not address the government’s addi-
tional rationale concerning acceptance of the validity of the
government action at issue as a precondition to a taking
suit to recover compensation for the action. Nor need we
consider another question not raised before us—whether
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 9 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 9 of 10 --

PETLECHKOV v. US 10
jurisdiction in the Claims Court is barred by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1500, which addresses certain situations in which a
closely related claim is simultaneously pending in another
forum. See, e.g., United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation,
563 U.S. 307 (2011); Resource Investments, Inc. v. United
States, 785 F.3d 660 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
III
We affirm the Claims Court’s dismissal for lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED
Case: 25-1098 Document: 21 Page: 10 Filed: 10/10/2025

-- 10 of 10 --