IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:20-cv-00667-M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ORDER ) $69,480.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY ) ) Defendant. ) This civil forfeiture action comes before the court on the Government’s motion to strike Michele Manning’s claim [DE 22]. Manning has not properly verified her purported claim and thus lacks standing to contest the forfeiture. That said, the court grants her request for leave to amend. As a result, the court denies without prejudice the Government’s motion to strike Manning’s claim [DE 22] and Manning’s motion to dismiss the Government’s complaint [DE 12]. I. Background The Government seeks forfeiture of $69,480.00 seized from Aaron Chanakira (the Currency) based on an alleged connection to drug trafficking. See DE 1 {ff 4, 7 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)); DE 1-1 at 5. Following Chanakira’s death in a car accident, two relatives filed successive claims to the Currency. His uncle claimed to own the Currency in an earlier administrative proceeding. DE 23-1. After the Government brought the above-captioned action, Chanakira’s mother Michele Manning filed a claim on behalf of her son’s estate. DE 11. She then moved to dismiss the Government’s complaint. DE 12. The Government responded in opposition to dismissal, DE 21, and moved to strike Manning’s claim for lack of statutory standing under
Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (the Supplemental Rules), DE 22.! The Government argues Manning has not verified her claim as required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)()(C). See DE 22 at 1; DE 23 at 1, 3. Her attorney signed a document entitled “Verified Claim of Michele Manning” and served it on the Government. DE 11 at 3. This document asserts that Manning “has an ownership or possessory interest in [the Currency]” because Chanakira legally obtained the Currency from his uncle as a business investment. See DE 11 at 2-3. Manning also signed a statement that she “hereby makes claim to the [the Currency]” on behalf of her son’s estate. DE 11 at 4. Still, she makes only one declaration under penalty of perjury in an attached “[v]Jerification”: I, Michele Manning, declare under penalty of perjury, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that I am the duly appointed Administratrix of the Estate of Aaron T. J. Chanakira, and authorized to make a claim to the Defendant property on behalf of the estate and lawful heirs of Aaron T. J. Chanakira. DE 11 at 5. Manning maintains that she complied with the Supplemental Rules, see DE 29 at 8, but requests leave to amend her claim if necessary, DE 29 at 8 n.5. II. Legal Standards Supplemental Rule G governs forfeiture actions in rem arising from federal statutes. Supp. R. G(1). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply when the Supplemental Rules do not address an issue. Jd. A. Asserting Claims under Supplemental Rule G(5) Once the Government initiates a civil forfeiture action, “[a] person who asserts an interest in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action
The Government’s motion also references Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(B), which pertains to standing under Article III, but argues only that Manning has not met Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C)’s verification requirements. See DE 22 at 1; DE 23 at 1, 3.
is pending.” Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i). This claim must (A) identify the specific property claimed, (B) identify the claimant and state her interest in the property, (C) be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury, and (D) be served on the government’s attorney. Jd. Courts strictly enforce compliance with the Supplemental Rules. United States v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d 750, 752 (4th Cir. 1991). Would-be claimants lack statutory standing to contest forfeiture until they satisfy Supplemental Rule G(5)’s filing requirements. See United States v. Approximately 548.22 Pounds of Hemp, No. 321CV00267FDWDCK, 2022 WL 412714, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2022) (unpublished) (collecting cases). B. Striking Claims under Supplemental Rule G(8) The Government may challenge a claimant’s compliance with Supplemental Rule G(5)’s strictures by moving to strike the claim under Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A). Courts must resolve any such motion attacking standing before deciding a claimant’s motion to dismiss the action. Supp. R. G(8)(c)(ii)(A). That said, courts should only strike a claim if convinced that the claimant should not be allowed an opportunity to cure the defect. See Supp. R. G(8)(c), Advisory Committee Notes (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15). Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit instructs that courts should generally give such leave unless amendment would unduly prejudice the opposing party, amount to futility, or reward bad faith. See Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Associates, 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010). III. Discussion Manning hhas mot filed a properly verified ciaim. The jourported ‘‘Verified Claim ot Michele Manning” identifies her as a would-be claimant and states her interest in the Currency as required by Supplemental Rules G(5)(a)(i)(A) and (B). See DE 11 at 1-3; see also DE 29 at 8 (“The Verified Claim does in fact identify the specific property claimed and recognizes her interest in
the property.”). Her attorney served this document on the Government as required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(D). See DE 11 at 3. Manning did not, however, sign this purported claim under penalty of perjury as required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)G)(C). See DE 11 at 3 (including only counsel’s signature). The so signed “[v]erification” Manning attaches, DE 11 at 5, does not suffice. The Supplemental Rules mandate that Manning sign the claim stating her interest in the Currency under penalty of perjury. Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i)(C). This verification requirement acts as an essential safeguard against false claims. See United States v. $104,250.00 in U.S. Currency, 947 F. Supp. 2d 560, 564 (D. Md. 2013) (collecting cases “emphatically enforce[ing] the requirement that the claim be filed under oath”). Here, however, the only declaration Manning makes under penalty of perjury is that she has the authority to claim the Currency on behalf of Chanakira’s estate as its administratrix. See DE 11 at 5. Asserting under penalty of perjury one’s authority to make a claim is different from asserting a claim under penalty of perjury. Put differently, Manning must set forth under penalty of perjury all the requisite identifications and statements in her claim. These include identifying the property, identifying herself as the claimant, and stating her interest in the property. See Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i)(A)HB). Until she does so and serves this verified claim on the Government, Manning lacks standing to contest the forfeiture. Thus, the court denies without prejudice her motion to dismiss the Government’s complaint [DE 12]. Enforcing compliance with the Supplemental Rules does not, however, require striking Manning’s claim.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:20-cv-00667-M UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ORDER ) $69,480.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY ) ) Defendant. ) This civil forfeiture action comes before the court on the Government’s motion to strike Michele Manning’s claim [DE 22]. Manning has not properly verified her purported claim and thus lacks standing to contest the forfeiture. That said, the court grants her request for leave to amend. As a result, the court denies without prejudice the Government’s motion to strike Manning’s claim [DE 22] and Manning’s motion to dismiss the Government’s complaint [DE 12]. I. Background The Government seeks forfeiture of $69,480.00 seized from Aaron Chanakira (the Currency) based on an alleged connection to drug trafficking. See DE 1 {ff 4, 7 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6)); DE 1-1 at 5. Following Chanakira’s death in a car accident, two relatives filed successive claims to the Currency. His uncle claimed to own the Currency in an earlier administrative proceeding. DE 23-1. After the Government brought the above-captioned action, Chanakira’s mother Michele Manning filed a claim on behalf of her son’s estate. DE 11. She then moved to dismiss the Government’s complaint. DE 12. The Government responded in opposition to dismissal, DE 21, and moved to strike Manning’s claim for lack of statutory standing under
Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (the Supplemental Rules), DE 22.! The Government argues Manning has not verified her claim as required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)()(C). See DE 22 at 1; DE 23 at 1, 3. Her attorney signed a document entitled “Verified Claim of Michele Manning” and served it on the Government. DE 11 at 3. This document asserts that Manning “has an ownership or possessory interest in [the Currency]” because Chanakira legally obtained the Currency from his uncle as a business investment. See DE 11 at 2-3. Manning also signed a statement that she “hereby makes claim to the [the Currency]” on behalf of her son’s estate. DE 11 at 4. Still, she makes only one declaration under penalty of perjury in an attached “[v]Jerification”: I, Michele Manning, declare under penalty of perjury, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that I am the duly appointed Administratrix of the Estate of Aaron T. J. Chanakira, and authorized to make a claim to the Defendant property on behalf of the estate and lawful heirs of Aaron T. J. Chanakira. DE 11 at 5. Manning maintains that she complied with the Supplemental Rules, see DE 29 at 8, but requests leave to amend her claim if necessary, DE 29 at 8 n.5. II. Legal Standards Supplemental Rule G governs forfeiture actions in rem arising from federal statutes. Supp. R. G(1). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also apply when the Supplemental Rules do not address an issue. Jd. A. Asserting Claims under Supplemental Rule G(5) Once the Government initiates a civil forfeiture action, “[a] person who asserts an interest in the defendant property may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action
The Government’s motion also references Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(B), which pertains to standing under Article III, but argues only that Manning has not met Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(C)’s verification requirements. See DE 22 at 1; DE 23 at 1, 3.
is pending.” Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i). This claim must (A) identify the specific property claimed, (B) identify the claimant and state her interest in the property, (C) be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury, and (D) be served on the government’s attorney. Jd. Courts strictly enforce compliance with the Supplemental Rules. United States v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d 750, 752 (4th Cir. 1991). Would-be claimants lack statutory standing to contest forfeiture until they satisfy Supplemental Rule G(5)’s filing requirements. See United States v. Approximately 548.22 Pounds of Hemp, No. 321CV00267FDWDCK, 2022 WL 412714, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 2022) (unpublished) (collecting cases). B. Striking Claims under Supplemental Rule G(8) The Government may challenge a claimant’s compliance with Supplemental Rule G(5)’s strictures by moving to strike the claim under Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A). Courts must resolve any such motion attacking standing before deciding a claimant’s motion to dismiss the action. Supp. R. G(8)(c)(ii)(A). That said, courts should only strike a claim if convinced that the claimant should not be allowed an opportunity to cure the defect. See Supp. R. G(8)(c), Advisory Committee Notes (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15). Leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Fourth Circuit instructs that courts should generally give such leave unless amendment would unduly prejudice the opposing party, amount to futility, or reward bad faith. See Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Associates, 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010). III. Discussion Manning hhas mot filed a properly verified ciaim. The jourported ‘‘Verified Claim ot Michele Manning” identifies her as a would-be claimant and states her interest in the Currency as required by Supplemental Rules G(5)(a)(i)(A) and (B). See DE 11 at 1-3; see also DE 29 at 8 (“The Verified Claim does in fact identify the specific property claimed and recognizes her interest in
the property.”). Her attorney served this document on the Government as required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(D). See DE 11 at 3. Manning did not, however, sign this purported claim under penalty of perjury as required by Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)G)(C). See DE 11 at 3 (including only counsel’s signature). The so signed “[v]erification” Manning attaches, DE 11 at 5, does not suffice. The Supplemental Rules mandate that Manning sign the claim stating her interest in the Currency under penalty of perjury. Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i)(C). This verification requirement acts as an essential safeguard against false claims. See United States v. $104,250.00 in U.S. Currency, 947 F. Supp. 2d 560, 564 (D. Md. 2013) (collecting cases “emphatically enforce[ing] the requirement that the claim be filed under oath”). Here, however, the only declaration Manning makes under penalty of perjury is that she has the authority to claim the Currency on behalf of Chanakira’s estate as its administratrix. See DE 11 at 5. Asserting under penalty of perjury one’s authority to make a claim is different from asserting a claim under penalty of perjury. Put differently, Manning must set forth under penalty of perjury all the requisite identifications and statements in her claim. These include identifying the property, identifying herself as the claimant, and stating her interest in the property. See Supp. R. G(5)(a)(i)(A)HB). Until she does so and serves this verified claim on the Government, Manning lacks standing to contest the forfeiture. Thus, the court denies without prejudice her motion to dismiss the Government’s complaint [DE 12]. Enforcing compliance with the Supplemental Rules does not, however, require striking Manning’s claim. She asks to amend this pleading, DE 29 at 8 n.5, and applicable commentary supports granting her leave to do so, see Supp. R. G(8)(c) Advisory Committee Notes (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15). Nothing before the court suggests Manning makes this request in bad faith. Nor
does the record suggest amendment would be futile as Manning states an interest in the Currency. Likewise, amendment would not unduly prejudice the Government as Manning requests leave to verify assertions she already made. In the interest of justice, the court grants Manning’s request and orders her to file an amended claim curing the defect no later than April 7, 2022. The Government’s motion to strike [DE 22] is thus denied without prejudice. Should Manning file an amended claim, the Government may serve special interrogatories under Supplemental Rule G(6) to gather additional facts bearing on standing and test Manning’s relationship to the Currency. If necessary, the Government may move to strike Manning’s amended claim for violations of Supplemental Rule G(5) or G(6). Should Manning fail to timely file an amended claim, the Government may move for an entry of default. IV. Conclusion In sum, Manning has not established standing to contest the forfeiture. The court orders that Manning file an amended claim conforming with Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)’s requirements by April 7, 2022. Thus, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Manning’s motion to dismiss the Government’s complaint [DE 12] and the Government’s motion to strike Manning’s claim [DE 22]. SO ORDERED this ee. of March, 2622. “dhs CV □□ MCHARD MYERS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE