SUMMARY ORDER The government commenced this civil forfeiture proceeding on July 9, 2018 by filing a verified complaint of forfeiture in rem. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1); see Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions G(2). The action sought to forfeit and condemn for the use and benefit of the government $11,585.00 in United States currency seized from Francine Haley’s car and $24,077.00 in United States currency seized from her residence because of its connection to marijuana distribution. (Id. at 1-2.) The Clerk issued an arrest warrant in rem on July 9, 2018, (Dkt. No. 2), which was executed on July 25, 2018 by the United States Marshal, (Dkt. No. 3). The defendant currency remains in the custody of the Marshal. (Compl. 4.)On or about April 9, 2018, Haley filed an administrative claim for the defendant currency with the Drug Enforcement Administration and elected to have the matter of its seizure and forfeiture referred for judicial action. (Id. 48.) On July 25, 2018, the government provided direct notice of this action by mailing a copy of the arrest warrant in rem and verified complaint to Jacek Lentz, the attorney representing Haley in the administrative forfeiture proceedings. (Dkt. No. 6); see Supp. R. G(4)(b)(iii)(B). The government also provided direct notice to Haley’s husband. (Dkt. No. 9); see Supp. R. G(4)(b)(i). Both notices stated that any claim was to be filed thirty-five days after they were sent, which was no later than August 29, 2018. (Dkt. No. 11, Attach. 2 7); see Supp. R. G(4)(b)(ii). Additionally, beginning on August 22, 2018, the government posted public notice of this action on its official forfeiture website for thirty consecutive days. (Dkt. No. 8); see Supp. R. G(4)(a).On September 14, 2018, Haley, with the assistance of attorney Lentz, filed a claim to the defendant currency. (Dkt. No. 7.) The untimely claim was filed without leave of the court or explanation. (Id.) On October 3, 2018, Haley filed an answer to the verified complaint. (Dkt. No. 10.)Pending is the government’s motion to strike Haley’s claim and answer. (Dkt. No. 11.) The government contends that “[Haley] has no statutory standing to contest this civil forfeiture action because her [l]ate [f]iled [c]laim was not filed within the time required,” and “she did not first seek and obtain permission from this [c]ourt to file a late claim.” (Id., Attach. 1 at 1.) In response, Haley does not dispute that she had notice of the time for filing a claim or that her claim was untimely. (Dkt. No. 13.) Instead, she contends that, given her pro se status and limited resources, striking her claim and answer would be “extremely unfair and harsh.” (Id.
