833 F.3d 192
2d Cir.2016Background
- In 2001 Jane Doe was convicted in E.D.N.Y. of health-care fraud and sentenced mainly to five years’ probation and restitution.
- By 2008 Doe completed probation but, years later, her conviction prevented her from obtaining or keeping work as a home health aide.
- In 2014 Doe moved pro se in the sentencing district to “expunge” (in practice seal/delete) all government records of her conviction.
- The district court relied on United States v. Schnitzer and Kokkonen to exercise ancillary jurisdiction and granted Doe’s motion, ordering sealing and deletion of records.
- The Government appealed; the Second Circuit evaluated whether a district court has ancillary jurisdiction to expunge records of a valid, long‑concluded conviction.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding Schnitzer limited to arrest‑record expungement after dismissal and Kokkonen bars ancillary jurisdiction here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court has ancillary jurisdiction to expunge/seal all records of a valid, final federal conviction years after sentence | Doe: District courts retain post‑judgment jurisdiction (and ancillary jurisdiction per Schnitzer/Kokkonen) to expunge records tied to the original case and to vindicate sentencing decrees | U.S.: Federal courts lack subject‑matter or ancillary jurisdiction over motions seeking equitable expungement of a valid, final conviction absent statutory authorization or other recognized basis | Held: No ancillary jurisdiction. Schnitzer applies only to arrest records after dismissal; Kokkonen’s two prongs are not met for equitable expungement of a valid conviction, so dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1977) (ancillary jurisdiction to expunge/issue protective orders limited to arrest records after dismissal)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (two narrow purposes for ancillary jurisdiction: disposition of factually interdependent claims and enabling a court to manage, vindicate, or effectuate its decrees)
- United States v. Field, 756 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 2014) (post‑Kokkonen authority rejecting ancillary jurisdiction to expunge convictions)
- United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871 (6th Cir. 2010) (district courts lack ancillary jurisdiction to order executive‑branch expungement of valid convictions)
- United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007) (equitable expungement of a conviction does not fit Kokkonen’s purposes)
- United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2006) (Kokkonen forecloses ancillary jurisdiction for equitable expungement of criminal records)
- United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2000) (no ancillary jurisdiction to expunge arrest or conviction records based solely on equitable grounds)