Opinion
Case No. 2:93-CR-00094.
August 12, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Katherine Cline's Motion to Seal a Criminal Record — specifically, the record of her October 1, 1993, conviction for knowingly concealing assets in bankruptcy. For the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
In a federal district court, there is no distinction between sealing and expunging a criminal record. United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47, 48 n. 3 (1st Cir. 2007) ("The word `expunge' generally refers to the physical destruction of information. With respect to criminal records, expunction refers to the process of sealing or destroying the record of a criminal conviction after expiration of a certain time.") (citations omitted); United States v. Rowlands, 451 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[I]n general when a defendant moves to expunge records, she asks that the court destroy or seal the records of the fact of the defendant's conviction and not the conviction itself.") (quoting United States v. Crowell, 374 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir. 2004)).
In the Sixth Circuit "[i]t is within the inherent equitable powers of a federal court to order the expungement of a record in an appropriate case." United States v. Doe, 556 F.2d 391, 393 (6th Cir. 1977). Although the authority to expunge is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, "expungement power is narrow and appropriately used only in extreme circumstances." United States v. Robinson, No. 94-1945, 1996 WL 107129 at *1-2 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 1996). The Court in Robinson further explained that "federal courts have most readily invoked the expungement power with respect to illegal convictions, convictions under statutes later deemed unconstitutional, and convictions obtained through governmental misconduct. Conversely, courts have uniformly denied expunction requests regarding valid convictions." Id. at *2.
In this case, Ms. Cline does not allege that her conviction was invalid; rather, she urges expungement so that she can more easily obtain employment and further her education. While Ms. Cline's efforts to obtain gainful employment and higher education are laudable, they do not create an "extreme circumstance" warranting the use of the Court's expungement power. In re Reid, 569 F. Supp. 2d 220, 222 (D. D.C. 2008); United States v. Lynum, No. 2:98-CR-4, 2006 WL 1804543 at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 28, 2006) (denying motion "requesting expungement so that [Lynum] can more easily pursue her education and obtain employment."); United States v. James, No. 97-CR-715(ILG), 2003 WL 21056989 at *2 (E.D. N.Y. Feb. 13, 2003); United States v. Wiley, 89 F. Supp. 2d 909, 911-913 (S.D. Ohio 1999). Difficultly obtaining employment is considered a natural and predictable result of a criminal conviction. Wiley, 89 F. Supp. 2d at 912. Unfortunately, difficulty obtaining educational opportunities is also considered a predictable outcome of criminal behavior and conviction.