United States of America v. Forrest

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re: 103 MOTION to Supplement filed by Joseph A. Forrest. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C Carlson on 3/5/25. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
JOSEPH FORREST,
:
:
Defendant.
:

CIVIL NO. 1:19-CV-564

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.

Factual Background
This case comes before us for consideration of a pro se motion filed by

the defendant, Joseph Forrest. (Doc. 103). This motion, which is styled as a
motion to supplement, seems to attempt to assert some sort of restitution
counterclaim against the plaintiff. The pertinent facts in this case can be
simply stated: On April 1, 2019, the United States commenced this lawsuit
against Mr. Forrest, an elderly farmer, 1 seeking to recover the value of crops
allegedly sold by Forrest which had been the subject of a Department of
Agriculture lien. According to the complaint, Forrest disposed of these crops
without compensating the government for the value of this collateral which

1

It appears that Forrest is currently approximately 88 years old.
1

secured its loans. (Doc. 1). Forrest was served with this complaint and was
initially represented by counsel in this case. Following protracted proceedings
marked by a series of alleged discovery defaults by Forrest, on March 17,
2021, the United States moved for entry of a default judgment. (Doc. 41). A
hearing was held on this motion on December 9, 2021. At the time of this
hearing, Forrest’s counsel allegedly informed the court that his client was
aware of the scheduled hearing and offered no opposition to the default
motion. (Doc. 45). Accordingly, on February 16, 2022, default judgment was
entered in favor of the government in the amount of $35,126.65, plus postjudgment interest. (Doc. 52).
We later conditionally granted Forrest’s pro se motion to reopen the
default judgment in this case after Forrest made a colorable claim of
abandonment by his former counsel and set a case management schedule in
this case. (Doc. 85). Consistent with that schedule the plaintiff moved for
summary judgment in October of 2024. (Doc. 104). This motion is ripe for
resolution and will be separately addressed by the Court.
It is against this backdrop that Forrest filed this motion to supplement
on October 17, 2024, more than five years after this case commenced. (Doc.
103). This motion seems to seek some form of restitution from the government
for alleged property damage which took place at the time of the default on this
2

loan, and new matter which would have been known by Forrest since this case
commenced in 2019. Forrest’s motion is unaccompanied by any brief which
would explain his right to this relief at this late date.
For the reasons set forth below, this motion will be denied.
II.

Discussion
Forrest’s motion fails for two reasons. First, the motion was

unaccompanied by any brief explaining the legal basis for this request. Local
Rule 7.5 requires that any party who files a motion shall be required to file a
brief in support of that motion within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the
motion. Since Forrest has not filed a brief in support of this motion, we will
deem the motion to be withdrawn. See, e.g., Salkeld v. Tennis, 248 F. App'x
341 (3d Cir.2007) (affirming dismissal of motion under Local Rule 7.5);
Booze v. Wetzel, 1:12-CV-1307, 2012 WL 6137561 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2012)
report and recommendation adopted, 1:CV-12-1307, 2012 WL 6138315
(M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012); Breslin v. Dickinson Twp., 1:09BCVB1396, 2011
WL 1577840 (M.D.Pa. Apr.26, 2011) Prinkey v. Tennis, No. 09B52, 2010 WL
4683757 (M.D.Pa. Nov.10, 2010) (dismissal under Local Rule 7.5).
Second, this motion—which seems to assert a counterclaim more than
five years after this lawsuit commenced—is untimely and without merit. On
this score:
3

In assessing whether to grant a defendant leave to amend its
answer to add a counterclaim, a court should consider whether
the counterclaim is compulsory, whether the pleader has acted
in good faith and has not unduly delayed filing the
counterclaim, whether undue prejudice would result to the
plaintiff, or whether the counterclaim raises meritorious claims.
See Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee
v. Alberts, 717 F.Supp 148, 153 (S.D.N.Y.1989), Index Fund,
Inc. v. Hagopian, 91 F.R.D. 599, 606 (S.D.N.Y.1981).
Perfect Plastics Indus., Inc. v. Cars & Concepts, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1080, 1082
(W.D. Pa. 1991).
In our view, to the extent that this motion to supplement attempts to
belatedly assert some sort of counterclaim after more than five years of
litigation, this motion is untimely and prejudicially delays the progress of this
litigation. Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion we will DENY this
motion.
An appropriate order follows.
S/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED: March 5, 2025

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
JOSEPH FORREST,
:
:
Defendant.
:

CIVIL NO. 1:19-CV-564

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s
pro se motion to supplement (Doc. 103) is DENIED.
So ordered this 5th day of March 2025.
S/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

5