Opinion
Civil Action 5:23-cv-00220-TES
08-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. VEHICLE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING ANSWER
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
On June 22, 2023, the United States filed a Complaint for Forfeiture [Doc. 1] against a 1970 Chevelle SS and a 2019 Chevrolet truck in relation to a criminal proceeding against Claimant Tyshion Hicks. [Doc. 1]. Subsequently, on July 28, 2023, Ashley Carnage-the attorney representing Claimant Hicks in the criminal proceeding-filed a purported answer on behalf of Claimant Hicks in this civil forfeiture action. See generally [Doc. 4]. Although Ms. Carnage filed the answer electronically with the Court via CM/ECF, it was signed by Claimant Hicks, with the signature block stating that she is proceeding pro se in this civil action. [Id. at p. 4]. Ms. Carnage has not filed an entry of appearance in this case.
See Order Appointing Counsel, United States v. Hicks, 1:22-cr-00037-LAG-TQL-1 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2022), ECF No. 21.
Claimant Hicks is incarcerated pending trial. Order, United States v. Hicks, 1:22-cr-00037-LAG-TQL-1 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2022), ECF No. 85. According to her filings, Claimant Hicks is being detained in Cordele, Georgia. [Doc. 5, p. 4].
As such, the Clerk of Court entered a notice of deficiency alerting both Claimant Hicks and Ms. Carnage that an attorney may not electronically file documents on behalf of a pro se litigant. To remedy the deficiency, the notice informed Claimant Hicks that she must mail her answer to the Court. In response, on August 2, 2023, the Court received another Answer [Doc. 5]-which is the exact same document. This time, while it was received by mail, it was still signed by Claimant Hicks.
Interestingly, the envelope showed the newly filed Answer was mailed from Thomasville, Georgia. [Doc. 5-1]. As noted, Plaintiff is incarcerated in Cordele, Georgia. Importantly, though, according to the Court's records, Ms. Carnage's office is located in Thomasville, Georgia. Therefore, it appeared to the Court that Ms. Carnage is still attempting to operate as legal counsel to Claimant Hicks without properly appearing in the case.
Accordingly, the Court ordered both Claimant Hicks and Ashley Carnage to separately respond and show cause, explaining to the Court who drafted the Answer [Doc. 5]. The Court also instructed the parties that “failure to respond to this Order will result in the Court striking Claimant Hicks' Answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).” [Doc. 6, p. 2].
Neither Claimant Hicks nor Ms. Carnage responded by the deadline set by the Court. Therefore, the Court is left with no choice but to keep its word and STRIKE Claimant Hicks' Answer [Doc. 5] pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f) and the Court's inherent power to manage its docket. Fisher v. Whitlock, 784 Fed.Appx. 711, 712 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that a court's power to manage its docket includes “the power to strike a party's pleading for failure to follow court orders”).
SO ORDERED,