United States v. Real Property Located at 17 Coon Creek Road
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8200
9th Cir.2015Background
- Government filed an in rem civil forfeiture complaint (CAFRA) against real property owned by Byron Pickle after marijuana cultivation and related contraband were discovered on the premises; Pickle filed a verified claim and answer asserting an innocent possessory/ownership interest.
- The parties agreed to multiple stays while related criminal prosecutions of Pickle’s relatives proceeded; by early 2011 the court lifted the stay and set discovery and trial deadlines.
- The United States served Supplemental Rule G(6) special interrogatories seeking basic identity and property-interest information; Pickle did not timely answer and later declined to respond invoking the Fifth Amendment and moved to stay.
- The government moved to strike Pickle’s claim under Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) for failure to comply with Rule G(6); it argued noncompliance defeated “statutory standing.”
- The district court struck Pickle’s claim for failing to answer the G(6) interrogatories, denied his stay motion for lack of standing, and entered default and final forfeiture judgment; Pickle appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit majority reversed, holding that (1) failure to answer G(6) does not automatically vitiate statutory standing where ownership is not meaningfully in dispute, and (2) striking a claim for G(6) noncompliance ordinarily requires opportunity to cure or clear justification for a terminating sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Pickle’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to answer Rule G(6) special interrogatories mandates striking a claim / defeats statutory standing | Noncompliance alone does not automatically defeat statutory standing where verified claim and government allegations show ownership; G(6) is a discovery tool and should not be treated as per se jurisdictional | Rule G(6) is integral to determining statutory standing; nonresponse justifies striking the claim under Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) | Reversed: G(6) noncompliance does not per se vitiate statutory standing when ownership is not reasonably disputed; striking requires more (opportunity to cure or clear futility) |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by deciding the government’s motion to strike before resolving Pickle’s stay motion | Court should have considered stay (which would have affected whether G(6) responses were required) before striking claim | Motion to strike could be resolved first because G(6) nonresponse bore on standing and thus on ability to obtain a stay | Reversed: resolving strike first and then denying stay for lack of standing was erroneous because strike was improper as a per se sanction |
| Whether the court was required to afford an opportunity to cure Rule G(6) deficiencies before striking the claim | Court should give claimant a chance to cure defective or missing G(6) responses except where futile or where claimant repeatedly abuses discovery | Government contends district courts may strike claims for G(6) noncompliance and need not always provide cure if standing is implicated or claimant refuses to cooperate | Held for Pickle: advisory notes and precedent expect courts to allow cure in most cases; striking without offering cure or showing futility was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the government may mount adversarial testing of standing and compel answers despite Fifth Amendment objections | Pickle argues Fifth Amendment invocation may justify withholding answers and may justify stay if criminal jeopardy exists | Government says it may use G(6) to test for nominee/straw owner status and compel answers or move to strike if claimant refuses | Court: government retains ability to move to compel or otherwise pursue compliance; Fifth Amendment and stay issues require separate adjudication—G(6) noncompliance alone insufficient to cut off claim when ownership is clear |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2012) (explains Rule G(6)’s role in adversarial testing of standing and evaluates sufficiency of verified claim at summary judgment)
- United States v. $11,500.00 in U.S. Currency, 710 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses dismissal of forfeiture claims for procedural noncompliance and standard of review)
- United States v. $154,853.00 in U.S. Currency, 744 F.3d 559 (8th Cir. 2014) (reversed striking claim where government conceded statutory standing; special interrogatories unnecessary)
- United States v. $100,348.00 in U.S. Currency, 354 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2004) (discusses Rule G(5) filing requirements and statutory standing under CAFRA)
- United States v. 5145 N. Golden State Blvd., 135 F.3d 1312 (9th Cir. 1998) (addresses strict compliance with filing requirements as tied to standing)
- United States v. 22249 Dolorosa Street, 167 F.3d 509 (9th Cir. 1999) (court may exercise discretion to overlook procedural noncompliance)
- United States v. One Lincoln Navigator 1998, 328 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2003) (clarifies that ‘‘standing’’ language can conflate merits—innocent owner—issues with jurisdictional standing)