United States v. $1,106,775 in US Currency

── United States v. $1,106,775 in US Currency ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-16499 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00158- v. MMD-CSD $1,106,775.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, OPINION Defendant-Appellant, OAK PORCELLI, Claimant-Appellant, and GINA PENNOCK, Claimant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted En Banc January 14, 2026 Pasadena, California 2 USA V. $1,106,775 IN US CURRENCY Filed June 2, 2026 Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Consuelo M. Callahan, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, John B. Owens, Michelle T. Friedland, Eric D. Miller, Daniel A. Bress, Gabriel P. Sanchez, Roopali H. Desai and Anthony D. Johnstone, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Bress; Concurrence by Judge Sanchez SUMMARY * Civil Forfeiture The en banc court reversed the district court’s order striking Oak Porcelli’s claim for currency that was the subject of the government’s civil forfeiture action, and remanded for further proceedings. The Drug Enforcement Administration seized the currency from Porcelli’s car following a search, and the government filed a civil forfeiture complaint, alleging that the seized currency was the proceeds of an illegal drug trade. Porcelli filed a verified claim to the currency, stating that he owned all the money seized from his car, as well as a motion to suppress evidence from the search. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  USA V. $1,106,775 IN US CURRENCY 3 The government responded by filing interrogatories pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that when someone files a claim for property that is the subject of a civil forfeiture action, the government “may serve special interrogatories limited to the claimant’s identity and relationship to the defendant property without the court’s leave at any time after the claim is filed and before discovery is closed.” The district court concluded that Porcelli’s interrogatory responses were deficient and struck his claim for the currency as a discovery sanction, reasoning that he had failed to provide sufficient interrogatory responses concerning his standing to seek the currency. With Porcelli’s claim stricken, the district court entered a default forfeiture judgment for the government without allowing further discovery or considering whether Porcelli had standing. The en banc court held that Porcelli came forward with a legally sufficient claim of standing and interrogatory responses that provided the government with a sufficient basis for conducting further investigation into his claimed ownership of the money. In these circumstances, and when Porcelli was claiming currency that was indisputably seized from his possession, it was error for the district court to strike his claim when it did based on the alleged insufficiency of his Rule G(6) responses. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s order striking Porcelli’s claim and remanded for further proceedings. Concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, Judge Sanchez, joined by Judges Desai and Johnstone, agreed with the majority that Porcelli established standing to claim the currency. The district court therefore erred in issuing a litigation-ending discovery sanction based on the 4 USA V. $1,106,775 IN US CURRENCY