No. 22-3007 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

$34,918 United States Currency

Defendant

Christopher Hester

Claimant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________

Submitted: April 13, 2023 Filed: June 13, 2023 ____________ Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Christopher William Hester claimed $34,918 found in his car during a traffic stop. When he failed to fully respond to the government’s special interrogatories, the district court sanctioned him by striking his claim and entering a default judgment forfeiting the money to the government. Hester appeals, arguing that the district court relied on an incorrect interpretation of Rule G(8). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court reverses and remands.

I.

On November 2, 2021, police stopped a car for a traffic violation. Hester was driving. The passenger, Antonio Burris, had a backpack at his feet. Smelling marijuana, police searched the car, finding a few marijuana cigarettes, two empty suitcases, and $34,918 in cash vacuum-sealed and plastic-wrapped inside the backpack.

Hester and Burris claimed they had pooled their money for a trip to Las Vegas, where they planned to gamble, shop, and bring back winnings in the empty suitcases. The government thought the money was drug-related. The Drug Enforcement Administration sought forfeiture of the cash under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

Hester claimed ownership of the money, filing a verified answer under Supplemental Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, which governs forfeiture actions in rem and establishes procedures for claiming defendant property. 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. Supp. R. G.

Three provisions are relevant: First, Rule G(5) describes filing a claim. Supp. R. G(5). This “low threshold” is “a bare-bones requirement to ‘state the claimant’s interest in the property.’” United States v. $579,475.00 in U.S. Currency, 917 F.3d 1047, 1049 (8th Cir. 2019) (en banc), quoting Supp. R. G(5). Second, Rule G(6) allows the government to “serve special interrogatories . . . to test the claimant’s relationship to the property.” Id., citing Supp. R. G(6). Finally, Rule G(8) authorizes motions to strike a claim “for failing to comply with Rule G(5) or (6).” Supp. R. G(8)(c)(i)(A).

1 Burris did not file a claim. -2- Hester filed a claim under Rule G(5). The government served 17 special interrogatories under Rule G(6). Hester responded, but just barely. He answered three days past the deadline, objected to 9 of the 17 interrogatories, provided incomplete responses to four, and failed entirely to respond to one. He did not even sign and swear to his answers.

The parties began a back-and-forth. Hester promised to supplement all but one of his (admittedly insufficient) responses. The government agreed to drop the one objectionable interrogatory and allow 15 days to supplement the rest. Hester supplemented his responses, verified the document, and attached financial records, but he also gave terse and incomplete answers.2

The government, still unsatisfied, identified deficiencies and threatened a motion to strike if Hester failed to fully supplement. Hester