United States v. $31,000.00 in U.S. Currency
872 F.3d 342
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA seized $31,000 from Wiggins’s suitcase and $10,000 from Allison’s carry-on at Cleveland Hopkins Airport after agents (and a narcotics dog) investigated them; both men had prior felony drug convictions according to the government.
- Government filed a civil in rem forfeiture complaint under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6); each claimant filed a verified claim asserting sole ownership of the seized currency and denying consent to searches.
- The government moved to strike both claims before any discovery, arguing the verified claims were mere "naked assertions of ownership" and insufficient under Supplemental Rule G(5).
- The district court granted the motion to strike for lack of standing and entered forfeiture; Wiggins and Allison appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit considered whether Rule G(5)’s verification and identification requirements demand more than a verified, plain assertion of ownership at the pleading stage, and whether dismissal before discovery was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a verified, succinct claim of ownership satisfies Supplemental Rule G(5) and statutory standing | Verified claim of ownership plus Rule G verification suffices; no extra factual detail required at pleading stage | Rule G(5) requires more specificity than a bald ownership assertion to prevent false claims and to enable targeted special interrogatories | A verified, plain assertion of ownership satisfies Rule G(5); claimants need not plead additional factual detail at the pleading stage |
| Whether Article III standing requires more context than an ownership averment when property is seized from claimant’s luggage | Allegation that claimant owned the seized money is a colorable ownership interest and suffices at pleading stage | Naked assertions of ownership/possession without provenance fail to show a colorable ownership interest | At pleading stage, a verified allegation of ownership is sufficient for Article III standing; factual proof can be required later |
| Whether the government may force claimants to bear evidentiary burden (prove legitimate ownership) by demanding detailed allegations pre-discovery | Claimants should not be required to disprove forfeiture or carry government’s burden; CAFRA places burden on government to prove forfeiture | Government seeks claimant detail to avoid fishing expeditions and to craft limited interrogatories | Court held requiring detailed factual pleadings would improperly shift the government’s burden; summary judgment or hearing is the proper point to require proof |
| Whether the district court properly struck claims before discovery under Rule G(8)(c) | Strike was premature where claim complied with Rule G and was verified; discovery and Rule G(6) tools available to government | Strike appropriate to prevent harassment and false claims absent meaningful claim detail | Court reversed: striking verified ownership claims pre-discovery was error; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing standards and pleading/burden at successive litigation stages)
- United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($17,900.00) in U.S. Currency, 859 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (overview of civil in rem forfeiture practice)
- United States v. $515,060.42 in U.S. Currency, 152 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 1998) (colorable ownership/possessory interest test for standing in forfeiture cases)
- United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2012) (Rule G(6) special interrogatories are limited to identity and relationship to property)
- United States v. $196,969.00 in U.S. Currency, 719 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2013) (a bald, verified assertion of ownership satisfies Rule G(5) at the pleading stage)
- Funds in the Amount of $239,400, 795 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2015) (rejecting a Rule G reading that would require demonstration of "legitimate" ownership)
- United States v. $174,206.00 in U.S. Currency, 320 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 2003) (government’s burden under CAFRA to prove forfeiture)