IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0398-WS-M

 )

$66,000.00, MORE OR LESS, etc., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for entry of default. (Doc. 28). 

The plaintiff seeks entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) against J.

Carlos Rodriguez-Hernandez as well as all other potential claimants to the defendant currency. 

All potential claimants were served by publication, which was completed on May 3,

2006. (Doc. 27). Pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(6)(a), and as stated in the

published notice, all potential claimants had until June 2, 2006 within which to file a verified

statement of interest. As of this date, no potential claimant has filed a verified statement of

interest or otherwise appeared in this action.

“When a party ... has failed to plead or otherwise defend ..., the clerk shall enter the

party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). In a previous order, the Court questioned whether a

potential claimant that has not filed a verified statement of interest or answer or otherwise

appeared in the action constitutes a “party” for purposes of Rule 55. (Doc. 20). The plaintiff has

been unable to identify any authority addressing this question and answering it in the affirmative. 

(Doc. 25 at 5-7). The Court’s independent research has been equally fruitless, but it has

identified two circuits strongly indicating a negative answer. See United States v. Real Property,

135 F.3d 1312, 1314, 1317 (9th Cir. 1998)(“Patel’s failure to comply with the requirements of

Supplemental Rule C(6) [i.e., his failure to “respond in any way to the complaint”] precludes

him from establishing standing as a party to the forfeiture action.”); United States v. 8136 South

Dobson Street, 125 F.3d 1076, 1082 (7th Cir. 1997)(“Absent the claim [the predecessor of a

verified statement of interest], the putative claimant is not a party to the action.”). While both of

these cases were decided in the context of a Rule 60(b) challenge to a default judgment entered

Case 1:05-cv-00398-WS-M Document 29 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 2
1

Relief under Rule 60(b) is limited to “a party or a party’s legal representative.”

2

See Tolliver v. United States, 9 Fed. Appx. 292 (6th Cir. 2001); Whiting v. United States,

231 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2000); United States v. $310,659.56 in U.S. Currency, 1997 WL 437395

(10th Cir. 1997); United States v. One Parcel of Property, 51 F.3d 118, 120 (8th Cir. 1995);

United States v. 6611 South Ingleside, 1995 WL 687658 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v.

$55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d 192 (3rd Cir. 1984); United States v. $22,640 in United

States Currency, 615 F.2d 356 (5th Cir. 1980); cf. United States v. Ragin, 1997 WL 268576 (4th

Cir. 1997)(default entered before claimant filed his claim, default judgment entered after).

3

While default may hasten the conclusion of a forfeiture action when a claimant has

appeared but failed to comply with Rule C(6), it is difficult to see the procedure’s advantage in

cases such as this. Because the time for filing verified statements has expired with none filed,

the plaintiff presumably could seek entry of a final judgment of forfeiture. Because — as

discussed in prior orders, (Doc. 15, 26) — the notice requirements of due process have been

satisfied and the statutory notice requirements fulfilled, it is difficult to discern on what grounds

potential claimants could seek to set aside such a judgment. Indeed, as noted in text, they

presumably are not parties capable of pursuing a Rule 60(b) motion to begin with. 

-2-

against a potential claimant and not under Rule 55 directly,1

 it is unclear how a potential

claimant who fails to file a verified statement or answer could be a “party” under Rule 55 yet

simultaneously not be a “party” under Rule 60(b). 

The plaintiff’s position is that, despite its inability to locate or articulate a rationale for

doing so, the Court should employ Rule 55 because other courts have done so in similar

circumstances. (Doc. 25 at 6-7). It appears that the majority of courts of appeal — without

noting or considering the question posed by the Court — have affirmed grants of default

judgment in forfeiture actions against a potential claimant that made no appearance in the

forfeiture action prior to entry of default judgment.2

 In reliance on this ambiguous precedent, the

Court will allow entry of default in this case.3 

For the reasons set forth above, the motion for entry of default is granted. The Clerk is

directed to enter default against J. Carlos Rodriguez-Hernandez specifically and against all other

potential claimants generally.

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of June, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00398-WS-M Document 29 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2