Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 4:02cr42
2021-08-24
UNITED STATES of America, v. Jermichael A. SIMS, Defendant.
Dee M. Sterling, Assistant United States Attorneys, Fountain Plaza Three, Suite 300, Newport News, Virginia 23606, for United States. Jermichael A. Sims, Pro Se.
Dee M. Sterling, Assistant United States Attorneys, Fountain Plaza Three, Suite 300, Newport News, Virginia 23606, for United States.
Jermichael A. Sims, Pro Se.
ORDER
REBECCA BEACH SMITH, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the court on the Defendant's Motion for Expungement of Records ("Motion"), filed pro se on April 12, 2021. ECF No. 23. In the Motion, the Defendant requests that the court expunge all records related to his arrest, indictment, and acquittal. Id.
The court is not unsympathetic to the Defendant's request and commends him on his many accomplishments over the past almost twenty (20) years, including obtaining a college degree and having a successful military career. The court is simply without jurisdiction to grant his request. See infra Part II.
I. Procedural History
On April 2, 2002, the Defendant was charged in Counts One and Three of a three-count, multiple-defendant criminal Indictment. ECF No. 1. The case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the court entered a judgment of acquittal on all counts. ECF No. 9.
On April 12, 2021, the Defendant filed the instant Motion. ECF No. 23. The United States filed a response in opposition on June 14, 2021. ECF No. 27. The Defendant's deadline for submitting a reply was July 29, 2021, and no reply has been filed.
II. Discussion
The United States opposes the Motion, arguing (1) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to expunge the Defendant's records, and (2) there are no "exceptional circumstances" that warrant expungement. Id. at 2-6.
The court "possess[es] only that power authorized by the Constitution and statute." United States v. Mettetal, 714 Fed. App'x 230, 233 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) ). There is no constitutional provision, nor any federal statute, that grants the court subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the Defendant's expungement motion.
Some cases hold that district courts can expunge criminal records as an exercise of the court's ancillary jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536, 539 (2d Cir. 1977). However, such cases predate the Supreme Court's decision in Kokkonen, in which the Supreme Court clarified the scope of ancillary jurisdiction. 511 U.S. at 379-80, 114 S.Ct. 1673 ; see Mettetal, 714 Fed. App'x at 233. Since Kokkonen was decided, numerous courts of appeal, including the Fourth Circuit in the unpublished Mettetal opinion, have held that district courts cannot expunge criminal records pursuant to their ancillary jurisdiction "for purely equitable reasons," in some cases overturning circuit precedent that predated Kokkonen. Mettetal, 714 Fed. App'x at 233 ; see United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47, 50-52 (1st Cir. 2007) ; Doe v. United States, 833 F.3d 192, 196-99 (2d Cir. 2016) ; United States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 478-80 (3d Cir. 2001) ; United States v. Field, 756 F.3d 911, 914-17 (6th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Wahi, 850 F.3d 296, 299-303 (7th Cir. 2017) ; United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855, 859-63 (8th Cir. 2006) ; United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1010-15 (9th Cir. 2000). It is of no consequence that the Defendant was acquitted of all charges, rather than convicted. See Coloian, 480 F.3d at 50-52 (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to expunge the defendant's records following an acquittal); Dunegan, 251 F.3d at 479-80 (same); cf. Field, 756 F.3d at 914-17 (holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to expunge the defendant's records following a dismissal by the United States); Wahi, 850 F.3d at 299-303 (same).
Ancillary jurisdiction refers to the court's "inherent authority to resolve disputes even absent an express statutory grant of jurisdiction." Mettetal, 714 Fed. App'x at 233. The court may properly exercise ancillary jurisdiction "to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent" and "to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees." Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379-80, 114 S.Ct. 1673.
The Defendant's Motion raises only equitable reasons for expungement. Non-equitable reasons for expungement include, for example, "mass arrests intended to curb the expression of civil rights." Mettetal, 714 Fed. App'x at 236 (citing Sullivan v. Murphy, 478 F.2d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1973), and United States v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1967) ).
III. Conclusion
Because the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief the Defendant seeks, the court does not consider the Motion on the merits. See Catawba Indian Tribe v. South Carolina, 865 F.2d 1444, 1460 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, the Motion, ECF No. 23, must be DENIED . The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the Defendant and the United States Attorney at Newport News.
The Defendant is ADVISED that he may appeal from this Order by forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 2400 West Avenue, Newport News, Virginia, 23607. The written notice must be received by the Clerk within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED .