United States of America v. Approximately 64 Dogs

Filing 47

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on May 18, 2017. The Clerk is ordered to STRIKE the 10 12 claims filed by Willie Jackson and Jaquan Jones. The Court GRANTS the Government's 42 44 motions for default as they pertain to Jackson and Jones. The Government's 46 Motion to Dismiss One Seized Dog as Defendant is GRANTED. The dog identified as IL6A01 is dismissed as a defendant. (RS1, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 18 May, 2017 10:00:54 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 4:16-cv-04074-SLD

APPROXIMATELY 64 DOGS,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court are the United States’ (“the Government”) Motion to Strike Claim Filed
by Willie Jackson and For Entry of Default, ECF No. 42, the Government’s Motion to Strike
Claim Filed by Jaquan Jones and For Entry of Default, ECF No. 44, and the Government’s
Motion to Dismiss One Seized Dog as Defendant, ECF No. 46.
BACKGROUND
On April 14, 2016, the United States Marshals seized sixty-four pit-bull type dogs as a
result of an investigation into a dog-fighting operation. The Marshals seized dogs from the
residences of Willie Jackson and Jaquan Jones. In the course of the investigation, Jackson
admitted that he hosted test matches between dogs in the basement at his home in Rock Island.
Mot. Strike Jackson’s Claim 3. Additionally, Jones admitted to attending and videotaping
matches and training of dogs for fighting. Mot. Strike Jones’ Claim 2.
Willie Jackson filed a Claim, ECF No. 12, on Friday, May 13, 2016, requesting the
“return of . . . 2 Staffordshire pit bull terriers that were seized” in relation to this case. The
defendant dogs seized from the residence are identified as one adult male, IL5B01, and a young
female dog, IL5B02. Mot. Strike Jackson’s Claim 2. The Claim was not verified by oath or

1

affirmation, nor was it served on the appropriate attorney for the United States. Id. Jackson did
not file an answer.
On May 10, 2016, Jaquan Jones filed a claim seeking to have one adult male pitbull dog,
identified by the Government as IL6A01, returned to his family, as well as a variety of dog
accessories (leash, harness, kennel) and electronics. Jones Claim, ECF No. 10. Jones noted in
his claim that the dog was a gift to his mother. Id. Subsequently, on Friday, May 20, 2016, Tara
Dent, Jones’ mother, filed a verified claim that the dog was her sole property and was not
involved with dogfighting. Dent Claim, ECF No. 17. Dent has since filed a Petition to
Withdraw Claim on the dog, releasing any and all claims regarding the seizure and forfeiting her
interest in the dog. Mot. Dismiss One Dog Ex. A, ECF No. 46-1. Neither Jones nor Dent filed
an answer.
Jackson, Jones, and Dent were all properly provided notice of the action and served with
Verified Complaints by certified mail and U.S. mail. ECF No. 3. The Government published
notice of the forfeiture on the official government website, www.forfeiture.gov, as required by
Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C). Declaration of Publication 5, ECF No. 23. The last publication occurred on
June 22, 2016. Id.
The Government, citing procedural deficiencies and Dent’s withdrawal of her claim, now
moves for the Court to strike the pleadings filed by Jackson and Jones. It further moves for the
Court to enter default against the two defendant dogs seized from Jackson’s residence and to
dismiss as defendant the dog seized from Jones’ residence.
ANALYSIS
Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Rule G delineates the procedure governing
forfeiture actions in rem. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp., Rule G(5). Pursuant to Rule G(4) of the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, the
2

government must provide notice and a copy of the complaint to potential claimants, who are
required to file a claim and then an answer with the district court. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. Rule
G(4)–(5). A party asserting an interest in seized property must file a verified claim, identifying
the property and the claimant’s interest, and serve it on the United States via the appropriate
government attorney. Id. at G(5)(a)(i). The claim must be “signed by the claimant under
penalty of perjury.” Id. at G(5)(a)(i)(C). See also United States v. Commodity Account No 549
54930 at Saul Stone & Co., 219 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting that “requirement of oath or
affirmation is not a mere technical requirement that we easily excuse.”) A claimant’s answer
must be served and filed within 21 days of filing the claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(5)(b). A
claimant who fails to meet the aforementioned requirements lacks standing to defend and contest
the forfeiture. Saul Stone & Co., 219 F.3d 595, 597 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. All
Assets & Equip. of W. Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d 1181, 1186 (7th Cir. 1995)).
Default must be entered against a party from “whom a judgment for affirmative relief is
sought [but] has failed to plead or otherwise defend,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), and, in its discretion,
a district court may grant a party’s subsequent motion for default judgment, Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b); see also In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004). A default judgment establishes a
defendant’s liability as a matter of law. Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete
Products, Inc., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983); Breuer Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Toronado Sys. of
Am., Inc., 687 F.2d 182, 186 (7th Cir. 1982).
Neither Jones nor Jackson verified their claims by oath or affirmation. In the Seventh
Circuit, verification of a claim is an “essential element of any claim” and failure to observe the
requirement essentially dooms the claimant’s ability to contest the forfeiture. Saul Stone & Co.,
219 F.3d at 597 (quoting United States v. U.S. Currency, in the Amount of $103,387.27, 863 F.2d
555, 559 (7th Cir. 1988)); see United States v. Funds in the Amount of $239,400, 795 F.3d 639,
3

643 (7th Cir. 2015). Neither Jones nor Jackson attempted to properly serve their Claims on the
government. See $239,400, 795 F.3d at 644. Nor did either claimant file an answer within the
requisite 21-day period. Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. G(5)(b). Tara Dent has subsequently relinquished
her right in the dog via the Petition to Withdraw Claim, in which she explicitly consented to the
surrender of her rights in the dog. See Mot. Dismiss One Dog.
The Claims filed by Jones and Jackson are procedurally deficient and neither individual
has established statutory standing in this civil forfeiture action. Jackson’s and Jones’ Claims are
to be stricken from the record. Dent is the only other claimant who has expressed ownership
interest in the dog seized at Jones’ residence. No other claimants have appeared to claim
ownership over the dogs seized from any of these properties, and the thirty day period for filing
claims on the property has long elapsed. All potential claimants are in default. United States v.
Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-one & 00/100 ($11,491.00) Dollars in U.S. Currency,
No. 10-1064, 2010 WL 3829432, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2010). For the foregoing reasons, the
Court enters default against Willie Jackson and Jaquan Jones, and grants Dent’s petition to
withdraw her Claim.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk is ordered to STRIKE the claims, ECF Nos. 10, 12, filed by Willie Jackson and
Jaquan Jones. The Court GRANTS the Government’s motions for default, ECF Nos. 42, 44, as
they pertain to Jackson and Jones. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss One Seized Dog as
Defendant, ECF No. 46, is GRANTED. The dog identified as IL6A01 is dismissed as a
defendant.
Entered May 18, 2017.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4