United States v. Solomon Jalloh

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-55901
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 8:17-cv-00954-CJC-JCG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SOLOMON JALLOH, AKA Sulaiman
Jalloh, AKA Suliman Jalloh,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
295,726.42 IN ACCOUNT FUNDS
SEIZED FROM INTERACTIVE
BROKERS ACCOUNT NO. 6871, et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Solomon Jalloh appeals pro se from the district court’s default judgment and
order striking his claim in the government’s civil forfeiture action. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016) (entry of default
judgment); United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th
Cir. 2012) (ruling on motion to strike). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Jalloh’s claim
because its determination that Jalloh’s supplemental response to the government’s
special interrogatory was incomplete and evasive was supported by the record, the
court gave Jalloh the opportunity to cure his response, and the court determined
that giving him an additional opportunity to cure would be futile. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. Supp. G(6)(a) (“The government may serve special interrogatories limited to the
claimant’s identity and relationship to the defendant property . . . .”); Fed. R. Civ.
P. Supp. G(8)(c)(i)(A) (providing that “the government may move to strike a claim
. . . for failing to comply with Rule [G(6)]”); United States v. Real Prop. Located
at 17 Coon Creek Rd., 787 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[C]ourts typically
afford claimants one or even several opportunities to cure defective Rule G(6)
responses, except where the circumstances indicate that it would be futile to do so
or reflect persistent discovery abuses.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in entering default judgment
2 18-55901
against Jalloh because the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claims and the
possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff weighed in favor of entering default
judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting
forth standard of review and factors to consider in determining whether to grant the
entry of default judgment).
We reject as meritless Jalloh’s contentions that the district court violated his
constitutional rights.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-55901