# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 17 , 201 7 * Decided March 17 , 201 7

Before

DANIEL A. MANION
, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE
, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS
, Circuit Judge

No. 16

- 2933

UNITED STATES
, Plaintiff

- Appellee
,

v

.
$94,600 IN U.S. CURRENCY , et al., Defendants

.

A PPEAL O F :

TYRONE McMILLIAN, JR. Claimant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

.

No. 14

- CV

- 394

Pamela Pepper
, Judge

.

O R D E R
Tyrone McMillian Jr. seeks to intervene in a forfeiture action brought by the United States against money and property seized from his house. The district court deemed McMillian’s proposed claim untimely and ruled that he thus did not have standing to oppo se forfeiture

. The court then entered default in favor of the government

* We have agreed to decide th is case without oral argument because the issues have been authoritatively decided. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(B)

. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 16

- 2933 Page 2

and denied McMillian’s motion to reconsider . McMillian challenges these decision s , but

we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.

Juries convicted Mc Millian of sex trafficking of children by force, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, coercing prostitution, id. § 2422(a), and possessing a firearm as a felon, id. § 922(g)(1). Before his arrest, law enforcement had seized several items from his home . These included a bout $94, 6 00 in United States currency, a 2005 Bentley Coupe, a diamond shield pendant, a diamond watch, and a yellow

- gold diamond bracelet.

After f ederal a gents learned that McMillian had obtained the seized items using proceeds traceable to other crimes , t h e government filed a for feiture complaint against the m , see 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)( 3 ). T he government notified McMillian that under Rule G(5)(a)(ii) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, he must file a verified claim to the named properties by May 15 and an answer with in 21 days after filing the claim. A claim need only : (1) identify the property being claimed; (2) identify the claimant and state the claimant’s interest in the property; (3) be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury; and (4) be served on the government attorney designated under Rule G(4)(a)(ii)(C ) or (b)(ii)(D). F ED

. R. C IV

. P. S UPP

. R. G(5)(a).
McMillian sought a number of extensions to file his claim. He said that he was being shuttled between prisons and did not have access to his “ documents or paperwork

. ” The court granted his first request an d gave McMillian until June 15 to file a claim. Shortly before that deadline, McMillian asked the court for another four months; t he government said that it did not object to on e month, until July 15. Without

a r uling from the court, McMillian filed an unsworn answer , but no claim, on June 16

. T he government advis ed the court and McMillian that he had not filed a verified claim and that if he failed to do so by July 15, it intend ed to move for default judgment. McMillian repeated his request for four mo re months, asserting that mail “ is a problem ” in prison and he need ed “proper documentation.”

T he district court denied McMillian’s motions for extension s beyond July 15 because “ any further delay in this case would [ be ] inimical to the interests of justice.” It ignored letters McMillan later wrote asking for more time

. I n October the government sought entry of default and partial default judgment on all items except the cash, which the court addressed later. McMillian then filed a verified claim and asserted that he had been waiting for the court to rule on his letter requests and that the government was not prejudiced. The government moved to dismiss his claim as untimely.No. 16

- 2933 Page 3

T he district court granted the government’s motion s

. It concluded that McMill ian did not file a timely claim and therefore lack ed statutory standing to oppose forfeiture

. Even if the court had granted his request for a 120

- day extension from the deadline of June 15, the court explained, that extension would have expired a week before he filed his claim. McMillian asked the court to reconsider

. Expanding on earlier assertions, h e argued that he thought he needed to file receipts and proof of ownership with the claim and he had limited access to these materials while shuttled between prisons

. The district court denied McMillian’s motion

. On appeal McMillian challenges the district court’s rulings

. He first argues that his unsworn answer and requests for more time showed a timely interest in the property , establishing standing

. But McMillian does not dispute that he missed the deadline in Rule G(5) to file a verified claim; and timely filing of a claim is needed to acquire standing to oppose forfeiture. See United States v. Commod ity Account No. 549 54930 at Saul Stone & Co. , 219 F.3d 595, 597 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing statutory standing under the predecessor rule). N either McMillian’s unsworn answer nor his requests for more time fulfilled the claim requirements of Rule G(5) for standing. See United States v. U.S. Currency in the Amount of $2,857.00
, 754 F.2d 208, 213 (7th Cir. 1985) ; United States v. $23,000 in U.S. Currency , 356 F.3d 157, 163 (1st Cir. 2004).

Next McMillian asserts that because his delay was caused by h is status as a pro s e prisoner in transit , the district court abuse d its discretion when it dismissed his late claim

. The district court could have accepted McMillian’s late claim but did not have to

. See U.S. Currency in the Amount of $2,857.00 , 754 F.2d at 215

. And its decision to reject the claim was reasonable. First McMillan gave no good reason for his delay. We can assume that, as a prisoner in transit , he lacked access to his regular possessions . But
t o file a claim he didn’t need these things . He need ed only to describe the claimed property, swear to his interest in it, and serve the government. F ED

. R. C IV

. P. S UPP

. R. G(5)(a). This he could do. Seco nd, he ignored the government’s warning that if he did not file a verified claim by July 15 it would move for default. Third
, the extra time that he took was substantial: When he filed his claim, m ore than 90 days had elapsed from the denial of his second request for an extension and more than 120 days elapsed from the original extended deadline

.
The dis trict court also reasonably refused to reconsider the dismissal of his untimely claim and the default

. McMillian attributed his delay to his erroneous belief that he needed receipts and legal materials, which were not available to him while in transit, to file a claim

. B ut this error does not justify his untimely claim. M istakes of lawNo. 16

- 2933 Page 4

(even by plaintiffs proceeding pro se ) generally do not ex cuse compliance with deadlines

. See McNeil v. United States , 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); McMasters v. United States , 260 F.3d 814, 818 (7th Cir. 2001). McMillan also argued that he delayed because he was waiting for the court to address h is letter requests f or more time. But when he wrote those letters, the district court had already decided that delays based on excuses contained in those letters would be “inimical” to justice . Thus f or the same reasons the court’s initial decision was reasonable, so was its denial of McMillian’s motion to reconsider.

We have considered McMillian’s remaining arguments , and none has merit.

AFFIRMED.