Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-19-03199/USCOURTS-ca6-19-03199-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
$46,340.00 in U.S. Currency

George Abernathy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0053n.06

Nos. 19-3199

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

$46,340.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant,

GEORGE ABERNATHY,

Claimant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: MERRITT, CLAY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. 

The Drug Enforcement Administration seized $46,340.00 in U.S. Currency from a 

residence in Toledo, Ohio pursuant to a search warrant, leading the government to commence this 

forfeiture proceeding. Claimant George Abernathy filed a verified claim attesting to his ownership 

of the money, but refused to answer the government’s discovery requests “on the basis of his Fifth 

Amendment Rights.” So the government moved to strike his claim for lack of standing and for 

summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Rule G(8)(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure’s Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Civil 

Forfeiture Actions. A magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant the government’s 

 Case: 19-3199 Document: 26-2 Filed: 01/27/2020 Page: 1
No. 19-3199, United States v. $46,340.00 in U.S. Currency

-2-

motion for lack of standing. The district court overruled Abernathy’s objections, adopted the 

report and recommendation, and ordered the money forfeited. Abernathy appeals. 

“[W]e review a district court’s decision to strike a claim in an in rem forfeiture action for 

an abuse of discretion. However, we review de novo the district court’s determination of a 

claimant’s standing to contest a federal forfeiture action.” United States v. $31,000.00 in U.S. 

Currency, 872 F.3d 342, 347 (6th Cir. 2017) (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citations 

omitted). 

This appeal is meritless. Abernathy “bears the burden of demonstrating an interest in the 

seized [currency] sufficient to satisfy the court of his standing as a claimant.” United States v. 

$515,060.42 in U.S. Currency, 152 F.3d 491, 498 (6th Cir. 1998). Mere physical possession of 

property does not suffice to show standing; instead, we “require some explanation or contextual 

information regarding the claimant’s relationship to the seized property.” Id.

Abernathy’s universal invocation of the Fifth Amendment during discovery foreclosed any 

way for him to sustain this burden: “[A] blanket assertion of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege is 

no defense to a forfeiture proceeding,” United States v. Certain Real Prop. 566 Hendrickson Blvd., 

Clawson, Oakland Cty., Mich., 986 F.2d 990, 996 (6th Cir. 1993), and likewise cannot be used as 

“a sword . . . to make one’s assertions of ownership impervious to attack,” United States v. 

$31,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 774 F. App’x 288, 292 (6th Cir. 2019). Otherwise, a “claim of 

privilege . . . could furnish [a claimant] with what may be false evidence and prejudice the 

government by depriving it of any means of detecting the falsity.” United States v. $99,500.00 

U.S. Currency Seized on Mar. 20, 2016, --- F. App’x ---, 2019 WL 5783471, at *4 (6th Cir. Nov. 

6, 2019). 

 Case: 19-3199 Document: 26-2 Filed: 01/27/2020 Page: 2
No. 19-3199, United States v. $46,340.00 in U.S. Currency

-3-

Having properly struck Abernathy’s verified claim as a Fifth-Amendment sword, 

$31,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 774 F. App’x at 292, the district court was left with a “record devoid 

of any other evidence that would demonstrate standing to contest the forfeiture,” id.; see also 

$99,500.00 U.S. Currency Seized on Mar. 20, 2016, 2019 WL 5783471, at *4 (similar). The 

government was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the basis of lack of standing. And 

because Abernathy lacked Article III standing, we will not consider his merits-based contention 

regarding “the propriety of the initial seizure.” $31,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 774 F. App’x at 292

n.2; see also Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 154 (1990) (“[B]efore a federal court can 

consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the court must 

establish the requisite standing to sue.”). 

For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

 Case: 19-3199 Document: 26-2 Filed: 01/27/2020 Page: 3