U.S. v. Haslett

Full title: United States of America v. Stacey L. Haslett

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Mar 26, 2009

Case No. 2:83-cr-37-1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 2:83-cr-37-1.

March 26, 2009

ORDER

JAMES GRAHAM, District Judge

This matter is before the court on the defendant's motion for expungement of the records in the above case, in which the defendant was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to manufacture methaqualone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

There is no general federal statute authorizing the expungement of records.¹ The Sixth Circuit has held that "it is within the inherent equitable powers of a federal court to order the expungement of criminal records in an appropriate case." United States v. Doe, 556 F.2d 391, 393 (6^th Cir. 1977). However, the expungement power is narrow and appropriately used only in extreme circumstances, such as illegal convictions, convictions under statutes later deemed unconstitutional, and convictions obtained through governmental misconduct. United States v. Robinson, 79 F.3d 1149 (table), 1996 WL 107129 at *1-2 (6^th Cir. March 8, 1996). The court in Robinson noted that courts had uniformly denied expungement requests regarding valid convictions, and held that the fact that defendant's conviction prevented her from obtaining more favorable employment did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting expungement.Id. at *2.

1 Various statutory provisions not applicable here authorize expungement in particular circumstances, such as the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, the habeas corpus statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254 and 2255, and 21 U.S.C. § 844(b)(2).

Several circuits have recently addressed the question of whether federal courts, in exercising their inherent authority to expunge criminal records, have ancillary jurisdiction to order the expungement of records in cases where the request is filed in the original criminal case and no attack is made on the validity of the arrest or conviction. In United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47 (1^st Cir. 2007), the court discussed the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) on expungement requests. InKokkonen, the Supreme Court noted that "[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." 511 U.S. at 377. The Court further stated that the federal courts' ancillary jurisdiction serves two purposes: "(1) to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent; and (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees." Id. at 379-80.

In Coloian, the defendant was acquitted following a jury trial, and defendant sought expungement due to the fact that his record created a stigma on his ability to practice law. The court held that defendant's request for expungement did not implicate either of the reasons for the existence of ancillary jurisdiction. The court noted that the original criminal charges in the case had nothing to do with the equitable grounds upon which defendant sought expungement of his record, and that the existence and availability of the criminal records did not frustrate or defeat the defendant's acquittal, but rather accurately documented his arrest, trial, and acquittal. Coloian, 480 F.3d at 52. The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion for expungement of defendant's criminal records on equitable grounds.

Other circuits have reached similar conclusions. In United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855, 860-62 (8^th Cir. 2006), the court held that in light of Kokkonen, district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to expunge that is based solely on equitable considerations. Rather, a district court may have ancillary jurisdiction only "to expunge criminal records in extraordinary cases to preserve its ability to function successfully by enabling it to correct an injustice caused by an illegal or invalid criminal proceeding." Id. at 861-62. In United States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 480 (3d Cir. 2001), the court held that a district court did not have jurisdiction over a motion to expunge criminal records based on equitable grounds, while declining to decide whether a court may do so on the basis of constitutional or statutory infirmity in the underlying criminal proceedings or on the basis of an unlawful arrest or conviction. See also United States v. Rowlands, 451 F.3d 173, 178 (3d Cir. 2006) (rejecting defendant's argument that court had inherent jurisdiction over petition for expungement where defendant did not attack validity of underlying criminal proceeding or conviction).

In United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014-15 (9^th Cir. 2000), the court held that expungement of a criminal record solely on equitable grounds did not serve the purposes of ancillary jurisdiction articulated in Kokkonen, and that ancillary jurisdiction was limited to expunging the record of an unlawful arrest or conviction, or to correcting a clerical error. In that case, the defendant filed a motion in the original criminal case seeking expungement of his records in light of his acquittal, but did not allege any unlawful arrest or other legal infirmity. The court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction "to expunge a criminal record, even when ending in an acquittal."Id. at 480.

Other circuits have held that district courts have ancillary jurisdiction to expunge records based on equitable considerations. See United States v. Flowers, 389 F.3d 737, 739 (7^th Cir. 2004); United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536, 539 (2d Cir. 1977); Livingston v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 759 F.2d 74, 78 (D.C. Cir. 1985); United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927 (10^th Cir. 1975). However, as noted by the court in Coloian, these cases either predate Kokkonen or fail to address that decision.

The Sixth Circuit has not yet specifically decided the impact of Kokkonen on the expungement issue in a reported decision. However, in United States v. Welch, No. 1:05-cr-158 (unreported), 2007 WL 4465256 at *2 (W.D.Mich. Dec. 18, 2007), the court cited the decisions in Kokkonen, Coloian and like cases, and noted that while "the Sixth Circuit has not spoken on this issue, it is likely to follow the great weight of reasoned authority." The court held in Welch that the impact of the defendant's conviction on her ability to advance in her employment did not fall within the narrow jurisdiction of the federal courts to order expungement.

The expungement of records in this case is not necessary "to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent" or "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. The defendant does not contend that his conviction was illegal. He seeks to seal the records due to the potential impact of the conviction on his plans to start a business. There is no evidence suggesting that the records of this court are inaccurate or contain a clerical error.

The defendant's request for expungement also fails to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting the expungement of the records on equitable grounds. Defendant has not shown equitable concerns which outweigh the court's interest in maintaining accurate and complete records. See Meyer, 439 F.3d at 862; Robinson, 1996 WL 107129 at *1-2 (noting that in considering expungement, the harm to the defendant's employment of maintaining the records must be balanced against government's need to maintain extensive records to aid in effective law enforcement).

This court concludes that it has no ancillary jurisdiction over defendant's request for expungement. Even assuming that the court has such authority, defendant has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances which would justify the expungement of the criminal records in this case. Defendant's motion to seal the records in this case is denied.