United States v. $196,969.00 United States Currency
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11763
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Indiana police collected a large cash cache from Rodney Johnson's home; state handed it to federal forfeiture proceedings.
- The federal government filed a forfeiture action under 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(3) and Supplemental Rule G(2), alleging the cash was proceeds of illegal drug activity (21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)).
- Johnson, as legal occupant of the home, filed a verified claim under Rule G(5), asserting ownership interests in all items found in the house.
- The district court struck the claim for purported Rule G(5) noncompliance and, without reaching Article III standing, dismissed the claim and ordered forfeiture.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding Rule G(5) compliance sufficed; Article III standing need not be proven at the pleading stage; potential frivolousness issues noted but remand follows for possible third try.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule G(5) compliance sufficiency | Johnson complied with Rule G(5) by stating an interest in the property. | Rule G(5) requires more detailed disclosure beyond a mere ownership assertion. | Rule G(5) compliance suffices; no extra detail required. |
| Article III standing at filing | Johnson's verified claim shows colorable ownership; standing is alleged. | The government must be able to challenge standing with evidence. | Article III standing need not be proven at the pleading stage; the claim supported standing. |
| Frivolousness vs. technical noncompliance | Claim's scope is arguable; any defects could be cured on remand. | The claim was unclear/frivolous and should be dismissed. | Grounds for dismissal as frivolous or noncompliant are unsound; remand for potential correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing limits; injury must be concrete and particularized)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (standing and pleading requirements in complex claims)
- Kamelgard v. Macura, 585 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture claim requirements; pleading standards)