United States of America v. Fuller's Personal Property et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 33 Motion for Discovery; granting 34 Motion to Strike ; denying 39 Motion for Leave to File; denying 41 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/11/2017. Sent to Wesley Russell Fuller, 59156-056 at Butner - F.M.C. P.O. Box 1600 Butner, NC 27509 via US Mail. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:16-CV-688-D

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

FULLER'S PERSONAL PROPERTY,
Defendant.

ORDER

)
)
)
)

On July 13, 2017, Wesley Russell Fuller ("Fuller") moved to compel initial disclosures
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). See [D.E. 33]. On July 19, 2017, the government responded in
opposition [D.E. 38] and noted that initial disclosures are not required in forfeiture proceedings. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B)(ii). The government is correct. Thus, the court denies Fuller's motion
for initial disclosures.
On July 14, 2017, the government moved to strike Fuller's claim pursuant to Supplemental
Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [D.E. 34] and fil~d a memorandum in
support [D.E. 35]. Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) states that "[a]t any time before trial, the
government may move to strike a claim or answer for failing to comply with Rule 0(5) or (6)."
Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C) states that "[a] person who asserts an interest in the defendant
property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action is pending. The
claim must ... be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury." "Courts consistently have
required claimants to follow the language of the Supplemental Rules to the letter." United States
v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d 750, 752 (4th Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted).

On August 7, 2017, Fuller moved to file amended pleadings to correct his failure to comply
with Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C). See [D.E. 39]. On August 16, 2017, the government
responded in opposition and argued that the proposed amendment is futile because Fuller still failed
to comply with Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C). See [D.E. 40]; United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d
314, 317 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. $104.250.00 in U.S. Currency, 947 F. Supp. 2d 560,
563-65 (D. Md. 2013) (analyzing Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C)).
On August 28, 2017, Fuller moved to file amended pleadings to correct his failure to comply
with Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C). See [D.E. 41]. On September 7, 2017, the government
responded in opposition and argued that the proposed amendment was futile because Fuller had still
not complied with Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C). See [D.E. 42].
The court has reviewed the record. Fuller's initial filing does not comply with Supplemental
Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C). See [D.E. 35] 3-5. Accordingly, the court grants the motion to strike.

See,~,

$104.250.00 in U.S. Currency, 947 F. Supp. 2d at 563-65. In addition, for the reasons stated in the
government's responses [D.E. 40, 42], the proposed amendments are futile because Fuller has not
complied with Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C). Thus, the court denies the motions to amend.

In sum, the court DENIES the motion for discovery [D.E. 33], GRANTS the motion to
strike [D.E. 34], and DENIES the motions to amend [D.E. 39, 41].
SO ORDERED. This _1_1 day of October 2017.

2