IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

3330 N. BORDER AVENUE, WESLACO, TEXAS,

Defendant,

OMAR FIDENCIO ROJAS,

Claimant-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CV-163

Before ELROD, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Omar Fidencio Rojas seeks authorization to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP) on appeal from the district court’s striking of his filings and grant of 

summary judgment as to his claim to the property located at 3330 N. Border 

Avenue, Weslaco, Texas. The district court denied Rojas authorization to 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 3, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40225 Document: 00514456582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2018
No. 17-40225

2

proceed IFP, concluding that he presented no non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). By moving to proceed IFP 

in this court, Rojas challenges the district court’s certification that his appeal 

is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 

1997).

Although Rojas has demonstrated that he is financially eligible to 

proceed IFP on appeal, see Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 

331, 339 (1948), he has not raised a legal issue arguable on the merits and thus 

nonfrivolous, see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Rojas 

challenges the district court’s striking of three different pleadings he filed. 

First, he argues that his unverified July 2015 objection and motion to stay 

forfeiture constituted a claim to the property because Rule G of the 

Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture 

Actions does not require technical compliance and the pleading sufficiently 

identified his interest in the property. We have required that claimants 

strictly comply with the rules governing forfeiture claims to minimize the filing 

of false claims. United States v. Real Prop. Located at 14301 Gateway Blvd. 

W., El Paso Cty. Tex., 123 F.3d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the district 

court exercises discretion in considering motions to strike. United States v. 

$38,570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir. 1992).

The district court in this matter considered the repeated notice that both 

the district court and the Government provided to Rojas regarding the 

requirement that his claim be verified, as well as the policy underlying Rule G. 

Rojas’s citation of an unpublished out-of-circuit case as an argument that

technical compliance with the rule is not required fails to present a point 

arguable on its merits in light of the district court’s analysis of the facts and 

this court’s precedent. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.

 Case: 17-40225 Document: 00514456582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2018
No. 17-40225

3

Similarly, Rojas presents no nonfrivolous issue for appeal with regard to 

his March 2016 response in opposition to the Government’s motion to strike 

and his June 2016 objection to the Government’s amended complaint. See 

Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Both pleadings are untimely as claims and, 

therefore, subject to being struck as such. See Real Prop. Located at 14301 

Gateway Blvd. W., El Paso Cty. Tex., 123 F.3d at 314; $38,570 U.S. Currency, 

950 F.2d at 1113-15. Further, because “[t]he filing of a claim is a prerequisite 

to the right to file an answer and defending on the merits,” the district court’s 

exercise of discretion in striking these pleadings likewise presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Cactus Pipe & Supply Co. v. M/V Montmartre, 

756 F.2d 1103, 1114 (5th Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted); see Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.

The absence of a verified claim defeats Rojas’s challenge to the striking

of his pleadings addressing the merits of the forfeiture case. See Cactus Pipe 

& Supply Co., 756 F.2d at 1114. Because Rojas failed to timely file a verified 

claim, the district court acted within its discretion in striking his pleadings on 

the merits and in not addressing the arguments raised in those pleadings. See 

id.; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220.

Rojas has raised no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See Howard, 707 F.2d 

at 220. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and his 

appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R.

42.2.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

 Case: 17-40225 Document: 00514456582 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2018