United States Supreme Court
DEGEN v. UNITED STATES, (1996)
No. 95-173
Argued: April 22, 1996 Decided: June 10, 1996

Petitioner Degen is outside the United States and cannot be extradited to face federal drug charges. When he filed an answer in a related civil action, contesting the Governments attempt to forfeit properties allegedly purchased with proceeds from his drug dealings, the District Court struck his claims and entered summary judgment against him, holding that he was not entitled to be heard in the forfeiture action because he remained outside the country, unamenable to criminal prosecution. The courts final order vested title to the properties in the United States, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

A district court may not strike a claimants filings in a forfeiture suit and grant summary judgment against him for failing to appear in a related criminal prosecution. Pp. 2-8.

(a) The Government contends that the District Courts inherent powers authorized it to strike Degens claims under what has been labeled the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine." Principles of deference counsel restraint in resorting to the courts inherent authority to protect their proceedings and judgments in the course of discharging their traditional responsibilities, see, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44, and require its use to be a reasonable response to the problems and needs provoking it, Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States, 507 U.S. 234, 244. Pp. 3-5.

(b) No necessity justifies disentitlement here. Since the courts jurisdiction over the property is secure despite Degens absence, there is no risk of delay or frustration in determining the merits of the Governments forfeiture claims or in enforcing the resulting judgment. The court has alternatives, other than the harsh sanction of disentitlement, to keep Degen from using liberal civil discovery rules to gain an improper advantage in the criminal prosecution, where discovery is more limited. Disentitlement also is too arbitrary a means of redressing the indignity visited upon the court by Degens absence from the criminal proceedings and deterring flight from criminal prosecution by Degen and others. A courts dignity derives from the respect accorded its judgments. That respect is eroded, not enhanced, by excessive recourse to rules foreclosing consideration of claims on the merits. Pp. 5-8. 47 F. 3d 1511, reversed and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

[End of Syllabus]

---

U.S. Supreme Court
No. 95-173
BRIAN J. DEGEN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [June 10,1996] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we consider whether a United States District Court may strike the filings of a claimant in a forfeiture suit and grant summary judgment against him for failing to appear in a related criminal prosecution. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held this to be a proper exercise of the District Courts inherent authority. We reverse.

A federal grand jury in Nevada indicted Brian Degen for distributing marijuana, laundering money, and related crimes. On the same day in 1989 that it unsealed the indictment, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada also unsealed a civil forfeiture complaint. The Government sought to forfeit properties in California, Nevada, and Hawaii, allegedly worth $5.5 million and purchased with proceeds of Degens drug sales or used to facilitate the sales. 84 Stat. 1276, as amended, 21 U. S. C. Section(s) 881(a)(6)-(a)(7). An

Click Here to Read the rest of this document