United States of America v. $15,000

Filing 21

ORDER granting 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Verified Claim of Ownership 5 and Answer to Complaint 6 filed by Mr. John Shoffner.Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 7/23/2012. (Brown, T.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
$15,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY

§
§
§
§
§

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 1:11CV97HSO-JMR
DEFENDANT PROPERTY

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
VERIFIED CLAIM AND ANSWER OF MR. JOHN SHOFFNER
BEFORE THE COURT is a Motion [17] to Strike Claim [5] and Answer [6] of
John Shoffner, filed by the United States of America [“Government”], pursuant to
Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and
Asset Forfeiture Actions [“Supplemental Rules”]. To date, no Response has been
filed by Mr. Shoffner. Having reviewed the Government’s Motion, the record and
pleadings on file, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court concludes that the
Government’s Motion to Strike [17] should be granted, and that Mr. Shoffner’s
Verified Claim of Ownership [5] and Answer [6] should be stricken.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 16, 2011, the Government filed a Verified Complaint for In Rem
Forfeiture [1] pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6), seeking seizure and forfeiture of
$15,000.00, in United States currency. According to the Complaint,
[t]he Defendant Property consists of $15,000.00, in United States
currency that was seized from John Shoffner on October 11, 2010, in a
traffic stop on U.S. Interstate 10 westbound near the 40 mile marker in
Harrison County, Mississippi. The Defendant Property is presently in
the custody of the United States Marshal’s Service.
...
The Defendant Property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §

881(a)(6) because it constitutes: 1) money, negotiable instruments,
securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished
by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical
in violation of the Controlled Substances Act; 2) proceeds traceable to
such an exchange; and 3) money, negotiable instruments, and securities,
used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Controlled
Substances Act.
Compl. [1] at pp. 1-2.
That same day, the Government executed and filed a Notice of Action and Arrest of
Property to John Shoffner [4]. On April 25, 2011, Mr. Shoffner filed a Notice of
Verified Claim of Ownership, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Mr. Shoffner filed an
Answer [6] to the Complaint on May 13, 2011, admitting that the $15,000.00, was
seized from him, and asserting an affirmative defense that forfeiture would be
improper inasmuch as there was not a substantial connection between the currency
and the exchange of a controlled substance. Ans. [6], at p. 2.
Following a telephonic conference, the Court entered a Case Management
Order [9] on June 29, 2011. On February 16, 2012, the Government served Mr.
Shoffner with a First Set of Special Interrogatories pursuant to the Rule G(6) of the
Supplemental Rules. Mr. Shoffner did not respond to the Special Interrogatories
within the requisite twenty-one [21] day period. The Government forwarded a good
faith letter and a good faith certificate to Mr. Shoffner. Letter, att. as Ex. “1,” and
Certificate, att. as Ex. “2”, respectively, to Pl.’s Mot. to Strike [17]. According to the
Government, Mr. Shoffner neither responded to the good faith letter nor executed
the good faith certificate.

-2-

The Government now moves to Dismiss the Notice of Verified Claim [5] and
Answer [6], pursuant to Rule G(6)(b) of the Supplemental Rules. The Government
argues as grounds that, to date, Mr. Shoffner has failed to respond to the First Set
of Special Interrogatories.
II. DISCUSSION
The Government asserts that the currency it seized from Mr. John Shoffner
was furnished, or intended to be furnished, in exchange for controlled substances,
and/or were proceeds traceable to such an exchange, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
881(a)(6). “In a forfeiture proceeding involving currency, the district court exercises
in rem jurisdiction and the currency is the res. The power of the court is derived
entirely from its control over the defendant res.” United States v. $38,570 U.S.
Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir. 1992)(citing U.S. v. $57,480.05 U.S.
Currency and Other Coins, 722 F.2d 1457, 1458 (9th Cir. 1984)). “A bare assertion
of ownership of the res, without more, is inadequate to prove an ownership interest
sufficient to establish standing.” United States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d
1108, 1112 (5th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. One 18th Century Colombian
Monstrance, 797 F.2d 1370, 1375 (5th Cir. 1986)(“claimant who asserts standing to
contest forfeiture of property used or imported in violation of federal law must
establish that he has an ownership interest in the property subject to forfeiture”).
Supplemental Rule G(6)(a) provides that:
[t]he government may serve special interrogatories limited to [the
claimant’s] identity and relationship to the defendant property without
the court’s leave at any time after the claim is filed and before discovery
-3-

is closed.
Supplemental Rule G(6)(a).
Supplemental Rule G(6)(b) requires “answers or objections to [special]
interrogatories must served within 21 days after the [special] interrogatories are
served.” Id.

Rule G(8)(c) allows the government to move to strike a claim “at any

time before trial,” if the claimant fails to timely respond to the interrogatories. Id.
In the present case, Mr. Shoffner has clearly failed to comply with the
Supplemental Rules. It is evident from the record that he is not interested in either
pursuing his claim or otherwise complying with the required deadlines. The
Government’s Motion should be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that because Mr. Shoffner has
failed to comply with the requirements of the Supplemental Rules, the
Government’s Motion to Strike Verified Claim and Answer should be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons
more fully stated herein, the Government’s Motion [17] to Strike Claim and Answer
of Mr. John Shoffner, pursuant to Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Supplemental Rules for
Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, filed May 22, 2012, is
GRANTED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Verified Claim
of Ownership [5] filed April 25, 2011, and Answer and Defenses [6] filed May 13,
-4-

2011, by Mr. John Shoffner are STRICKEN.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 23rd day of July, 2012.

s/ Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-