Reported / Citable
Background
The United States filed a verified complaint seeking forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) of $16,250 seized from Craig Johnson at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. The complaint alleged that DEA officers noticed two bags bearing Johnson’s name that smelled strongly of marijuana, obtained his consent to search the bags, and found currency in his carry-on and checked luggage. A chemical swab reportedly indicated the presence of cannabis on the money. Officers seized the currency as suspected drug proceeds but did not arrest Johnson.
After receiving notice of the forfeiture action, Johnson, through counsel, filed a verified claim to the currency but did not file the separate answer required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(b). He also did not respond to the government’s motion to strike his claim and enter default, and no other person filed a claim or answer.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended granting the government’s motion, striking Johnson’s claim, and directing the clerk to enter default against the defendant currency. This was a report and recommendation, not a final forfeiture judgment or an order adopting the recommendation.
The magistrate judge concluded that Johnson lacked statutory standing because he failed to file a separate answer within the time required by Supplemental Rule G(5). Although courts may excuse procedural defaults in appropriate circumstances, Johnson offered no special or extenuating circumstances and took no further action to pursue his claim. The magistrate judge also found striking warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Key Takeaways
- A verified claim alone does not satisfy Supplemental Rule G; a claimant must also timely file a separate answer or Rule 12 motion.
- Failure to comply with Rule G(5) can eliminate a claimant’s statutory standing to contest civil forfeiture.
- Courts may relax forfeiture pleading requirements in appropriate circumstances, but prolonged inactivity and failure to explain the default weigh against relief.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores the strict procedural requirements governing federal civil-forfeiture claims. Even a represented claimant who timely asserts ownership may lose the ability to contest forfeiture by failing to complete Rule G’s second required step.
It also illustrates that abandonment-like conduct can support striking a claim on two grounds: lack of statutory standing under the Supplemental Rules and failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).