986 F. 2d 503 -

Arthur Mitchell appeals from the district court's1 order striking his claim to the defendant property. We affirm.

The district court struck Mitchell's claim because Mitchell had failed to comply with Rule C(6) of the Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. This court reviews the district court's decision to strike Mitchell's claim for abuse of discretion. See One Parcel of Property Located at RR 2, Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa, 959 F.2d 101, 104 (1992). "[A] district court does not abuse its discretion by requiring strict compliance with Supplemental Rule C(6)." United States v. Ford 250 Pickup 1990, VIN # 1FTHX26M1KA69552, No. 92-2228, slip op. at 5 (8th Cir. Dec. 8, 1992). Rule C(6) requires the claimant to file a verified claim within ten days after process has been executed, or within such additional time as may be allowed by the court, and to file an answer within twenty days after filing the claim. Mitchell filed only an unverified "response." He did not request leave to file his "Affidavit and Claim," dated over a year after he was served. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Mitchell had failed to comply strictly with the requirements of Rule C(6) and in striking his claim.

Mitchell's contention that collateral estoppel and double jeopardy bar the civil forfeiture proceeding fails because Mitchell was not a defendant in the prior criminal action and because neither collateral estoppel nor double jeopardy bars a civil, remedial forfeiture proceeding following acquittal on related criminal charges. United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361-66 (1984).

Accordingly, we affirm.