United States of America v. $14,035.00 U.S. Currency

Filing 27

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 25 : ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for 60(b) Relief, [Doc. No. 25], is denied.. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 8/5/13. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.
$14,035.00 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:11CV1010 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Claimant Dennis McGinnist’s Motion for
60(b) Relief, [Doc. No. 25]. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the Reasons set
forth below, the Motion is denied.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek
relief from an order if the party can prove mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
excusable neglect, or for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b)(1) and (6).
On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint against Defendant.
Claimant filed a “Verified Affidavit” on July 26, 2011, which Plaintiff construed
as a verified claim to the defendant property, and an Answer. On August 1, 2011,
Claimant filed a “Motion to Compel” requesting that the Verified Complaint be

dismissed.
On August 3, 2011, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories on Claimant, as
provided in Rule G(6) of the Supplemental Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule G(6)
authorizes Plaintiff to serve interrogatories on a claimant, within 21 days of
receiving a motion to dismiss, requesting claimant’s identity and his relationship
to the defendant property, in order to determine whether the claimant has standing
to contest the forfeiture. The interrogatories were to be answered by August 24,
2011.
On August 9, 2011, Claimant filed a “Motion for Protective Order, arguing
that he should not be required to answer the Special Interrogatories until such time
as Plaintiff responded to his requests for documents. Claimant filed a
“Supplemental Answer” on August 30, 2011.
On August 31, 2011, the Court issued its Order denying Claimant’s Motion
for Protective Order.
Claimant did not serve answers or objections to the Special Interrogatories
on or before August 24, 2011. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
Claimant’s Claim and Answer on August 31, 2012.
Rule 60(b) provides, in pertinent part,
(b) On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
-2-

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule
59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
The Eighth Circuit has noted that Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary
relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional
circumstances.” Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2005). “The district
court’s decision to deny a Rule 60(b) motion will be reversed only for an abuse of
discretion.” Id.2
Claimant has not presented any grounds for this Court to reconsider its
Order striking Claimant’s claims based on his procedural failings, rather, Claimant
attempts to argue the merits of his claim. Merely rearguing his claim does not
provide the grounds upon which this Court should set aside its Order.

-3-

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for 60(b) Relief,
[Doc. No. 25], is denied.
Dated this 5th day of August, 2013.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-