IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

UNITED STATES, §

PLAINTIFF, §

 §

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-994-N-BK

 §

$34,200 IN US CURRENCY, §

DEFENDANT, §

 §

DARREL ROSE, §

CLAIMANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the district judge’s Order of Reference, Doc. 7, this 

case has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial 

management. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer for Lack of Standing. 

Doc. 9. For the reasons that follow, the motion should be GRANTED, and Darrel Rose’s claim 

should be DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges in its Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem that in November 2021, 

the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) seized $34,200.00 in United States currency (the

“Property”) from Darrel Rose (“Rose”) at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Doc. 1 at 3-

6. In January 2022, Rose filed an administrative claim with the DEA for the return of the 

Property. Doc. 1 at 2. 

In May 2022, Plaintiff filed this in rem action against the Property, alleging that it is 

subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) (governing forfeitures related to a violation 

Case 3:22-cv-00994-N-BK Document 13 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 63
2

of the Travel Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1952, and 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) (governing forfeitures related to 

drug trafficking). Doc. 1 at 7-9. On or about August 8, 2022,1 Plaintiff provided notice to Rose 

of the instant action, as required by Supplemental Rule G(4)(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure.

2

 Doc. 9 at 2. A month later, Rose filed an answer. Doc. 6. To date, however, Rose 

has not filed the requisite verified claim for the Property or responded to the instant motion.

II. APPLICABLE LAW and ANALYSIS

The Supplemental Rules to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern when a claimant 

declares an interest in the named property in a forfeiture complaint. United States v. $26,535.00 

in U.S. Currency, No. 1:18-CV-350, 2019 WL 1030554, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2019) (citing 

18 U.S.C. § 983(4)(A)), adopted by, 2019 WL 1028130 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2019). Under 

Supplemental Rule G(5)(a), “[a] person who asserts an interest in the defendant property must 

contest the forfeiture by filing a claim in the court where the action is pending . . . by the time 

stated in [the] direct notice sent under Rule G(4)(b).” FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R. G(5)(a). The 

claim must “be signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury.” FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R. 

G(5)(a)(i)(C). 3 Upon the filing of a verified claim, a party achieves statutory standing and may 

1 The notice recites that it was sent on Saturday, August 6, 2022, Doc. 9-1 at 1, but the

Government prudently calculates notice from the first weekday that followed, Monday, August 

8, 2022, , Doc. 9 at 1.

2 Supplemental Rule G(4)(b) states that “[t]he government must send notice of the action and a 

copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the 

facts known to the government before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule 

G(5)(a)(ii)(B). The notice must state . . . a deadline for filing a claim, at least 35 days after the 

notice is sent.” FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R. G(4)(b).

3 Within 21 days of filing a verified claim, “a claimant must serve and file an answer to the 

complaint or a motion under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12.” FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R.

G(5)(b).

Case 3:22-cv-00994-N-BK Document 13 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 64
3

only then pursue a claim for the defendant property on the merits. United States v. $33,890.00,

More or Less, in U.S. Currency, No. A-15-CV-037-LY-Ml, 2015 WL 5793928, at *2 (W.D. Tex.

Oct. 1, 2015) (citing Cactus Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. M/V Montmartre, 756 F.2d 1103, 1114

(5th Cir. 1985)), adopted by, 2015 WL 13804746 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2015). “Failure to comply 

with the procedural requirements therefore leaves a claimant without standing to challenge the 

forfeiture.” $26,535.00 in U.S. Currency, 2019 WL 1030554, at *2 (citation omitted). If a 

claimant lacks statutory standing, the government may move to strike his answer for failing to 

comply with the Supplemental Rules. FED. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R. G(8)(c). 

Here, Plaintiff provided Rose notice of this action on August 6, 2022; said notice also 

advised Rose of the requirement that he file a verified claim within 35 days or risk forfeiture of 

the Property. Doc. 9-1 at 1-2. As such, Rose had until September 12, 2022, to file a verified 

claim. However, Rose failed to comply with statutory procedure and instead filed an answer to 

Plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, Rose lacks statutory standing to claim an interest in the Property. 

$26,535.00 in U.S. Currency, 2019 WL 1030554, at *2. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer for Lack of Standing, Doc. 

9, should be GRANTED, and Rose’s claim to the Property should be DISMISSED.

SO RECOMMENDED on May 19, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-00994-N-BK Document 13 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 65
4

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner 

provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file 

specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to 

which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate where in the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. 

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual 

findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending 

the time to file objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-00994-N-BK Document 13 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 66