Doe v. United States
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14764
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Jane Doe was convicted by jury in EDNY in 2001 of health-care fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347) and sentenced in 2002 to five years’ probation, home detention, and restitution.
- Doe completed probation in 2008 but alleged her conviction prevented her from obtaining/keeping work as a home health aide and filed a pro se motion in 2014 to "expunge" her conviction records.
- The district court (E.D.N.Y.) granted the motion in May 2015, ordering the Government to seal hard-copy records and delete electronic records; it relied on United States v. Schnitzer and Kokkonen.
- The Government appealed, arguing the district court lacked subject-matter and ancillary jurisdiction to expunge records of a valid conviction after the criminal case had concluded.
- The Second Circuit held the district court lacked jurisdiction to expunge records of a valid conviction and vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 to decide equitable post-judgment expungement years after final judgment | Doe: Federal courts retain criminal-case jurisdiction post-judgment and may entertain equitable motions | Government: No statutory grant; post-judgment criminal rules do not imply open-ended jurisdiction | Held: No § 3231 jurisdiction; criminal case concluded and conviction valid, so court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether district court had ancillary jurisdiction to expunge a valid conviction | Doe: Ancillary jurisdiction permitted to vindicate sentencing decree and rely on court’s own record | Government: Kokkonen restricts ancillary jurisdiction; expungement of a conviction does not vindicate or effectuate expired decrees | Held: No ancillary jurisdiction—expungement for equitable reasons does not serve Kokkonen’s purposes |
| Whether Schnitzer authorizes expungement of conviction records | Doe/District Ct: Relied on Schnitzer for authority to expunge | Government: Schnitzer addressed arrest records after dismissal, not convictions; its scope is limited | Held: Schnitzer confined to expungement of arrest records following dismissal and does not authorize expungement of valid convictions |
| Whether equitable expungement is available absent statutory authorization | Doe: Equitable relief warranted by rehabilitation and extreme collateral consequences | Government: Congress has not authorized such expungement here; courts lack power absent statute | Held: Court declined to reach merits but held equitable expungement of valid convictions is beyond federal court ancillary jurisdiction absent congressional authorization |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536 (2d Cir.) (1977) (recognized ancillary jurisdiction to issue protective orders concerning dissemination of arrest records following dismissal)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (limited ancillary jurisdiction to two purposes: interdependent claims and enabling courts to manage/vindicate/effectuate decrees)
- United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2000) (district courts lack ancillary jurisdiction to expunge criminal records on purely equitable grounds post-resolution)
- United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871 (6th Cir. 2010) (no ancillary jurisdiction to expunge records of valid criminal proceedings long since resolved)
- United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007) (expungement based on equitable grounds unrelated to original criminal claims is not within Kokkonen’s ancillary jurisdiction)