United States v. Marcus, No. 13-1515 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseClaimant sought the return of $154,853.00 in U.S. currency seized during a traffic stop. On appeal, claimant challenged the district court's grant of the government's motion to strike his verified claim and amended verified claim, its order forfeiting the currency, and its denial of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking claimant's verified complaint where his blanket assertions did not sufficiently identify his interest in the currency; the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that claimant failed to meet the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(5) as it pertained to $150.353.00 in which claimant claimed a possessory interest as bailee; the district court abused its discretion in striking claimant's amended verified claim as to the remaining $4,500 for failure to adequately respond to the special interrogatories when no special interrogatories were necessary to determine standing; and, on remand, the district court can address claimant's constitutional claims when it considers his motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - Forfeiture. District court did not err in striking Marcus's Amended Verified Claim based on its conclusion that the claim did not comply with the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(iii), which requires that on asserting an interest in cash as a bailee, the claimant must identify the bailor; with respect to that portion of the cash Marcus claimed to own, the district court erred in striking the claim as the claim was sufficient to establish his standing under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 983(d)(6)(A) and his failure to answer special interrogatories did not provide a basis for striking the claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.