15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 August Term, 2015 5 6 (Argued: April 7, 2016 Decided: August 11, 2016) 7 8 Docket No. 15‐1967‐cr 9 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 JANE DOE, 14 MC 1412, 13 14 Petitioner‐Appellee, 15 16 v. 17 18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 19 20 Respondent‐Appellant. 21 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 Before: 25 26 POOLER, LIVINGSTON, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. 27 28 In this appeal we address whether a district court has ancillary 29 jurisdiction to expunge all records of a valid conviction. In 2001 petitioner‐ 30 appellee Jane Doe was convicted in the United States District Court for the 31 Eastern District of New York (Gleeson, J.) of health care fraud and was 32 sentenced principally to five years’ probation. In 2014 Doe moved to 33 expunge all records of her conviction because it prevented her from 34 getting or keeping a job as a home health aide. Relying on this Court’s 35 decision in United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1977), the 36 District Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain Doe’s motion and 37 granted it. Because we conclude that Schnitzer applies only to arrest 38 records, we hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to consider
1 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 Doe’s motion. We therefore VACATE and REMAND with instructions to 2 dismiss Doe’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. Judge LIVINGSTON concurs 3 in a separate opinion. 4 5 NOAM BIALE (Michael Tremonte, Emily 6 Burgess, Sher Tremonte LLP, New York, NY; 7 Bernard H. Udell, Brooklyn, NY, on the brief), Sher 8 Tremonte LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner‐ 9 Appellee. 10 11 BRADLEY T. KING (David C. James, on the brief), 12 Assistant United States Attorneys, for Robert L. 13 Capers, United States Attorney for the Eastern 14 District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
15 Gabriel P. Harvis, Alex Lesman, Harvis & Fett 16 LLP, New York, NY; for amicus curiae The 17 Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
18 Leigh A. Krahenbuhl, Jones Day, Chicago, IL; 19 Lawrence D. Rosenberg, Paul V. Lettow, Jones 20 Day, Washington, DC; for amicus curiae Collateral 21 Consequences Resource Center, Inc.
22 Judith Whiting (Estee Konor, Emily Hoffman, on 23 the brief), The Community Service Society of New 24 York, New York, NY; Deborah H. Karpatkin, 25 New York, NY; for amici curiae The Community 26 Service Society of New York, National 27 Employment Lawyers Association of New York, 28 The Bronx Defenders, Center for Community 29 Alternatives, The Fortune Society, The Legal Aid 30 Society, Legal Action Center, MFY Legal Services, 31 National Employment Law Project, Open Hands 32 Legal Services, Sargent Shriver National Center 33 on Poverty Law, Urban Justice Center, Youth 34 Represent.
35 Frederick M. Oberlander, Montauk, NY; Richard 36 E. Lerner, New York, NY; for amicus curiae 37 Frontiers of Freedom Institute, Inc.
38 Joel B. Rudin, New York, NY; Harry Sandick, 39 Joshua A. Goldberg, Juvaria S. Khan, Patterson 40 Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY; for
2 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States 1 amici curiae The New York Council of Defense 2 Lawyers & The National Association of Criminal 3 Defense Lawyers.
4 LOHIER, Circuit Judge:
5 In this appeal we address whether a district court has ancillary
6 jurisdiction to expunge all records of a valid conviction. The case arises
7 from Jane Doe’s health care fraud conviction in 2001 after a jury trial in the
8 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gleeson,
9 J.). The District Court sentenced Doe principally to five years’ probation.
10 In 2014, seven years after her term of probation ended, Doe moved to have
11 her record of conviction expunged because her conviction prevented her
12 from getting or keeping a job as a home health aide. Relying on United
13 States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1977) and Kokkonen v. Guardian
14 Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the District Court
15 held in a decision and order dated May 21, 2015 that it had ancillary
16 jurisdiction to consider and grant Doe’s motion. It then directed the
17 Government to seal all hard copy records and to delete all electronic
18 records of Doe’s conviction. The Government appeals that decision as well
19 as a related order.
3 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 We hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Doe’s
2 motion to expunge records of a valid conviction. We therefore VACATE
3 and REMAND with instructions to dismiss Doe’s motion for lack of
4 jurisdiction.
5 BACKGROUND
6 To resolve this appeal, we accept as true the following facts taken
7 from the District Court’s opinion and order granting Doe’s expungement
8 motion. See Doe v. United States, 110 F. Supp. 3d 448 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).
9 In 1997 Doe, a single mother with no prior criminal history, worked
10 as a home health aide but struggled to pay her rent. Id. at 449‐50. That
11 year Doe decided to join an automobile insurance fraud scheme in which
12 she posed as a passenger in a staged car accident. As part of the scheme
13 she feigned injury and recovered $2,500 from a civil claim related to the
14 accident. Id. at 449‐50. In 2001 a jury convicted Doe of “knowingly and
15 willfully” participating in a “scheme . . . to defraud any health care benefit
16 program” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. Id. at 450; 18 U.S.C. § 1347(a)(1).
17 On March 25, 2002, the District Court imposed a sentence of five years’
4 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 probation and ten months’ home detention, as well as a restitution order of
2 $46,701. Doe, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 450.
3 By 2008 Doe had completed her term of probation. But she could
4 not keep a job in the health care field, the only field in which she sought
5 work. Doe was sometimes hired as a home health worker by employers
6 who did not initially ask whether she had been convicted of a crime. But
7 she was fired when the employers eventually conducted a background
8 check that revealed her conviction. Id. at 451‐52.
9 On October 30, 2014, Doe filed a pro se motion asking the District
10 Court to expunge her conviction “because of the undue hardship it has
11 created for her in getting — and especially keeping — jobs.” Id. at 448‐49.
12 Doe had by all accounts led an exemplary life since her conviction thirteen
13 years earlier. Id. at 455.
14 Relying first on Schnitzer, 567 F.2d at 539, the District Court
15 determined that it had ancillary jurisdiction to consider Doe’s motion.
16 Doe, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 454 & n.16; see Schnitzer, 567 F.2d at 538‐39
17 (holding that “[a] court, sitting in a criminal prosecution, has ancillary
18 jurisdiction to issue protective orders regarding dissemination of arrest
5 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 records,” and that “expungement . . . usually is granted only in extreme
2 circumstances” (quotation marks omitted)). In doing so, the District Court
3 acknowledged that the Supreme Court in Kokkonen had “limited ancillary
4 jurisdiction of collateral proceedings to instances where it is necessary ‘(1)
5 to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying
6 respects and degrees, factually interdependent,’ and ‘(2) to enable a court
7 to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its
8 authority, and effectuate its decrees.’” 110 F. Supp. 3d at 454 n.16 (quoting
9 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379‐80). But the District Court determined that
10 Doe’s motion satisfied both of these categories. Id.
11 First, the District Court explained, the motion’s “sole focus is the
12 record of the conviction that occurred in this case, and the exercise of
13 discretion it calls for is informed by, inter alia, the facts underlying the
14 conviction and sentence and the extensive factual record created while Doe
15 was under this Court’s supervision for five years.” Id. Second, the court
16 pointed out, “few things could be more essential to ‘the conduct of federal‐
17 court business’ than the appropriateness of expunging the public records
18 that business creates.” Id. (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381).
6 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 The District Court also cited three reasons why the consequences of
2 Doe’s conviction were “extreme” enough to warrant expungement of her
3 criminal record. First, Doe’s offense of conviction “is distant in time and
4 nature from [her] present life,” and “[s]he has not even been re‐arrested,
5 let alone convicted, in all th[e] years” since her conviction. Id. at 455
6 (quotation marks omitted). Second, Doe’s “criminal record has had a
7 dramatic adverse impact on her ability to work,” as “[s]he has been
8 terminated from half a dozen [home health aide] jobs because of the record
9 of her conviction” – a difficulty that was “compounded” by the fact that
10 Doe is over 50 years old and black. Id.; see also id. at 449, 452. Third,
11 “[t]here was no specter at the time that she had used her training as a
12 home health aide to help commit or cover up her crime,” and “[t]here is no
13 specter now that she poses a heightened risk to prospective employers in
14 the health care field.” Id. at 457.
15 For these reasons, the District Court granted Doe’s motion and
16 ordered “that the government’s arrest and conviction records, and any
17 other documents relating to this case, be placed in a separate storage
18 facility, and that any electronic copies of these records or documents and
7 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 references to them be deleted from the government’s databases, electronic
2 filing systems, and public record.”1 Id. at 458.
3 This appeal followed.
4 DISCUSSION
5 “Federal courts . . . are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Wynn v. AC
6 Rochester, 273 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir. 2001). “Even where the parties are
7 satisfied to present their disputes to the federal courts, the parties cannot
8 confer subject matter jurisdiction where the Constitution and Congress
9 have not.” Id. We conclude that the District Court did not have
10 jurisdiction over Doe’s motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because Doe’s
11 conviction was valid and the underlying criminal case had long since
12 concluded.
13 Citing the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Doe argues that
14 federal courts broadly retain subject matter jurisdiction over criminal cases
15 even after judgment has been entered. We agree that certain motions may
1 Although Doe’s petition was termed a motion to “expunge“ her criminal conviction, we agree with Doe and certain amici that the term “expunge” does not accurately describe what the District Court ultimately ordered. In effect, the District Court ordered the records of Doe’s conviction sealed rather than expunged or destroyed. Consistent with the parties’ briefs, however, we use the term “expunge” or “expungement” to resolve the question presented. 8 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 be raised after the entry of judgment in criminal cases. We also recognize
2 that the time limits for bringing those motions are often non‐jurisdictional.
3 But we are not persuaded that the District Court had subject matter
4 jurisdiction to decide Doe’s motion in this case. The relevant Rules of
5 Criminal Procedure all provide for limited jurisdiction over specified types
6 of post‐judgment motions. See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) (allowing
7 motions to reduce a sentence based on substantial assistance to the
8 government). None of these rules remotely suggests, however, that
9 district courts retain jurisdiction over any type of motion years after a
10 criminal case has concluded.
11 Nor are we persuaded that the District Court had ancillary
12 jurisdiction to consider Doe’s motion. “The boundaries of ancillary
13 jurisdiction are not easily defined and the cases addressing it are hardly a
14 model of clarity,” but “[a]t its heart, ancillary jurisdiction is aimed at
15 enabling a court to administer justice within the scope of its jurisdiction.”
16 Garcia v. Teitler, 443 F.3d 202, 208 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis added)
17 (quotation marks omitted). “Without the power to deal with issues
18 ancillary or incidental to the main action, courts would be unable to
9 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 effectively dispose of the principal case nor do complete justice in the
2 premises.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
3 With that in mind, we turn briefly to Schnitzer, on which the District
4 Court relied to decide that it had ancillary jurisdiction to grant Doe’s
5 motion. In Schnitzer, the defendant filed a motion to expunge his arrest
6 record following an order of dismissal in his criminal case. After the
7 district court denied his motion, the defendant argued on appeal that the
8 district court lacked jurisdiction to decide his motion in the first place. We
9 rejected the defendant’s argument. We held that “[a] court, sitting in a
10 criminal prosecution, has ancillary jurisdiction to issue protective orders
11 regarding dissemination of arrest records.” 567 F.2d at 538.
12 Although Schnitzer involved an arrest record, the District Court was
13 not alone in thinking that it extends to records of a valid conviction. See
14 United States v. Mitchell, 683 F. Supp. 2d 427, 430 n.10 (E.D. Va. 2010). But
15 we think it is clear that Schnitzer applies only to arrest records after an
16 order of dismissal. See Schnitzer, 567 F.2d at 538 (holding that “[a] court,
17 sitting in a criminal prosecution, has ancillary jurisdiction to issue
18 protective orders regarding dissemination of arrest records” (emphasis
10 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 added)); id. at 539 (noting that “[n]o federal statute provides for the
2 expungement of an arrest record,” but that “expungement lies within the
3 equitable discretion of the court” (emphasis added)). Our reading is
4 supported by the fact that Schnitzer itself relied on decisions that were
5 confined to the expungement of arrest records following dismissal of a
6 criminal case. See Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728, 741 (D.C.
7 Cir. 1969) (holding that the district court’s exercise of ancillary jurisdiction
8 over a motion to expunge arrest records was proper); United States v.
9 Linn, 513 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir. 1975) (same); United States v. Rosen, 343
10 F. Supp. 804, 806 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (exercising jurisdiction over a motion to
11 expunge arrest records); United States v. Seasholtz, 376 F. Supp. 1288, 1289
12 (N.D. Okla. 1974) (same). In Morrow, for example, the D.C. Circuit
13 explained that “an order regarding dissemination of arrest records in a
14 case dismissed by the court is reasonably necessary to give complete effect
15 to the court’s order of dismissal.” 417 F.2d at 741. We therefore conclude
16 that Schnitzer is confined to the expungement of arrest records following a
17 district court’s order of dismissal and as such does not resolve whether the
11 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 District Court had ancillary jurisdiction to expunge records of a valid
2 conviction in this case. 2
3 The District Court also cited Kokkonen in support of its decision to
4 exercise ancillary jurisdiction over Doe’s motion. In Kokkonen, the
5 Supreme Court determined that a district court had improperly exercised
6 ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement in a civil suit that it
7 had previously closed without expressly retaining jurisdiction to enforce
8 the agreement. As the District Court recognized, the Supreme Court
9 instructed that ancillary jurisdiction may be exercised “for two separate,
10 though sometimes related, purposes: (1) to permit disposition by a single
11 court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually
12 interdependent, and (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to
13 manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.”
14 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379‐80. Given the facts in Kokkonen, the Court held
15 that enforcing a settlement agreement upon which the dismissal was
2 Although it is unnecessary for us to decide the issue today, we do not view the Supreme Court’s decision in Kokkonen as necessarily abrogating Schnitzer. To the contrary, exercising ancillary jurisdiction to expunge (seal, delete) arrest records following a district court’s order of dismissal appears to comport with Kokkonen (insofar as it applies to criminal cases) because it may serve to “effectuate [that] decree[].” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 380. 12 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 predicated fell into neither category. The Court explained that “the facts
2 underlying respondent’s dismissed claim . . . and those underlying its
3 claim for breach of settlement agreement have nothing to do with each
4 other,” and “the only order here was that the suit be dismissed, a
5 disposition that is in no way flouted or imperiled by the alleged breach of
6 the settlement agreement.” Id. at 380.
7 Relying on Kokkonen, Doe argues that the District Court’s exercise
8 of ancillary jurisdiction served to “vindicate its sentencing decree” issued
9 in 2002. Appellee’s Br. 27. The District Court phrased the same point
10 slightly differently by characterizing its original decree as having
11 “sentenced [Doe] to five years of probation supervision, not to a lifetime of
12 unemployment.” Doe, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 457.
13 We reject Doe’s argument. The District Court’s sentence had long
14 ago concluded and its decrees long since expired by the time Doe filed her
15 motion. Under those circumstances, expunging a record of conviction on
16 equitable grounds is entirely unnecessary to “manage [a court’s]
17 proceedings, vindicate its authority, [or] effectuate its decrees.”
18 Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 380. “Expungement of a criminal record solely on
13 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 equitable grounds, such as to reward a defendant’s rehabilitation and
2 commendable post‐conviction conduct, does not serve any of th[e] goals”
3 identified in Kokkonen’s second prong. Sumner, 226 F.3d at 1014; see also
4 United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871, 875 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that a
5 district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a motion to expunge records
6 of a valid indictment and later acquittal because “[t]hese criminal cases
7 have long since been resolved, and there is nothing left to manage,
8 vindicate or effectuate”).
9 Doe alternatively argues that the District Court’s supervision of her
10 criminal proceedings (including the sentence) and its subsequent handling
11 of her motion to expunge her conviction on equitable grounds were
12 “factually interdependent” under Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379. We agree
13 that the District Court’s review of Doe’s motion may have depended in
14 part on facts developed in her prior criminal proceeding. See Doe, 110 F.
15 Supp. 3d at 454 n.16 (“[T]he exercise of discretion [that Doe’s expungement
16 motion] calls for is informed by, inter alia, the facts underlying the
17 conviction and sentence and the extensive factual record created while Doe
18 was under this Courtʹs supervision for five years.”). But we fail to see how
14 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 these two analytically and temporally distinct proceedings can be
2 described as “factually interdependent.”
3 To the contrary, a motion to expunge records of a valid conviction
4 on equitable grounds will ordinarily be premised on events that are
5 unrelated to the sentencing and that transpire long after the conviction
6 itself. For example, in this case the facts underlying the District Court’s
7 sentencing were clearly independent of the facts developed in Doe’s
8 motion filed years later. Conversely, the District Court granted Doe’s
9 motion based on facts and events (her repeated efforts to obtain
10 employment) that transpired years after her sentencing and term of
11 probation. Id. at 452, 456‐57; see United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47, 52
12 (1st Cir. 2007) (holding that “[a]s in Kokkonen, the original claims brought
13 before the district court in this [criminal] case have nothing to do with the
14 equitable grounds upon which Coloian seeks the expungement of his
15 criminal record”). And the collateral employment consequences Doe faces
16 today arise from the very fact of her conviction, not from the District
17 Court’s sentencing proceedings or Doe’s probationary term. For these
18 reasons, we conclude that Doe’s original sentencing and her motion to
15 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 expunge are not “mutually dependent.” Merriam‐Webster Dictionary (3d
2 ed.) (defining “interdependent”).
3 Finally, we note that Congress has previously authorized district
4 courts to expunge lawful convictions under certain limited circumstances
5 not present in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3607(c) (upon the application of
6 certain drug offenders who have been placed on prejudgment probation
7 and were less than twenty‐one years old at the time of the offense, “the
8 court shall enter an expungement order” expunging all public “references
9 to his arrest for the offense, the institution of criminal proceedings against
10 him, and the results thereof”); 18 U.S.C. § 5021(b) (repealed 1984)
11 (providing that after sentencing a youth offender to probation, a district
12 court “may thereafter, in its discretion, unconditionally discharge such
13 youth offender from probation . . . which discharge shall automatically set
14 aside the conviction”). We think it significant (though not dispositive) that
15 Congress failed to provide for jurisdiction under the circumstances that
16 exist here.
17 In summary, we hold that the District Court’s exercise of ancillary
18 jurisdiction in this case served neither of the goals identified in Kokkonen.
16 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 Our holding is in accord with that of every other sister Circuit to have
2 addressed the issue since Kokkonen. See United States v. Field, 756 F.3d
3 911, 915‐16 (6th Cir. 2014); Lucido, 612 F.3d at 875‐76; Coloian, 480 F.3d at
4 52; United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855, 859‐60 (8th Cir. 2006); United
5 States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 480 (3d Cir. 2001); Sumner, 226 F.3d at
6 1014‐15.3
7 The unfortunate consequences of Doe’s conviction compel us to
8 offer a few additional observations. First, our holding that the District
9 Court had no authority to expunge the records of a valid conviction in this
10 case says nothing about Congress’s ability to provide for jurisdiction in
11 similar cases in the future. As described above, Congress has done so in
12 other contexts. It might consider doing so again for certain offenders who,
13 like Doe, want and deserve to have their criminal convictions expunged
14 after a period of successful rehabilitation. Second, only a few months ago
15 (while this appeal was pending), the Attorney General of the United States
3 At oral argument, Doe waived any argument in support of sealing only the judicial records of conviction in her case, rather than all available records retained by the Government. See Oral Arg. Tr. 20; cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 141‐42 (2d Cir. 2004). 17 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 recognized and aptly described the unfortunate lifelong toll that these
2 convictions often impose on low‐level criminal offenders:
3 Too often, Americans who have paid their debt to society 4 leave prison only to find that they continue to be 5 punished for past mistakes. They might discover that 6 they are ineligible for student loans, putting an education 7 out of reach. They might struggle to get a driver’s 8 license, making employment difficult to find and sustain. 9 Landlords might deny them housing because of their 10 criminal records – an unfortunately common practice. 11 They might even find that they are not allowed to vote 12 based on misguided state laws that prevent returning 13 citizens from taking part in civic life. 14 15 Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Releases Roadmap to Reentry: The
16 Justice Department’s Vision to Reduce Recidivism through Federal
17 Reentry Reforms (Apr. 25, 2016),
18 https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney‐general‐loretta‐e‐lynch‐
19 delivers‐remarks‐national‐reentry‐week‐event. “[T]oo often,” the Attorney
20 General said, “the way that our society treats Americans who have come
21 into contact with the criminal justice system . . . turns too many terms of
22 incarceration into what is effectively a life sentence.” Id.
18 15-1967-cr Doe v. United States
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the District Court’s May 21
3 and 22, 2015 orders and REMAND with instructions to dismiss Doe’s
4 motion for lack of jurisdiction.
19 LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur fully in the majority opinion, with two exceptions. First, I do not
join footnote two, addressing whether Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), abrogated our decision in United States v. Schnitzer,
567 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1977). The majority implies, in dicta, that Schnitzer’s
jurisdictional holding may have survived Kokkonen. The weight of authority
from other circuits appears to the contrary.1 Regardless of the proper resolution
1 See United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871, 875‐76 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that “federal courts lack ancillary jurisdiction to consider expungement motions directed to the executive branch,” and in the process abrogating a prior Sixth Circuit precedent to the contrary on the basis that it “c[ould not] be reconciled with Kokkonen”); United States v. Coloian, 480 F.3d 47, 51‐52 (1st Cir. 2007) (holding that federal jurisdiction does not “provide[] ancillary jurisdiction over equitable orders to expunge because such orders do not fit within Kokkonen’s purposes for ancillary jurisdiction,” and distinguishing Schnitzer on the ground that it “predate[s] Kokkonen . . . which raises questions as to [its] continued viability”); United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855, 859‐601 (8th Cir. 2006) (though factually addressing only expungement of a conviction (rather than an arrest record), stating that “[i]n light of the Supreme Court’s instruction narrowing the scope of ancillary jurisdiction in Kokkonen . . . , we are convinced that a district court does not have ancillary jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record based solely on equitable grounds”); United States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 479‐80 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Kokkonen for the proposition that “in recent years [the Supreme Court] has held that ancillary jurisdiction is much more limited,” and relying on Kokkonen to hold that “in the absence of any applicable statute enacted by Congress, or an allegation that the criminal proceedings were invalid or illegal, a District Court does not have the jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record, even when ending in an acquittal”); United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1015 (9th Cir. 2000) (relying on Kokkonen to hold “that a district court does not have ancillary jurisdiction in a criminal case to expunge an arrest or conviction record where the sole basis alleged by the defendant is that he or she seeks equitable relief”); cf. Lucido, 612 F.3d at 876 (listing cases, including Schnitzer, that hold that 1
of this question, having found that Schnitzer is inapposite to this case, I would
not further opine on its continued validity.
Second, I do not join the majority’s discussion of the merits of affording
courts jurisdiction to expunge criminal convictions, which begins on page 17. I
am sympathetic to the concerns the majority raises in this dicta, but I note that
there are other significant considerations — including the value of governmental
and judicial transparency — that must also be assessed in the context of this
policy debate. Having concluded that we lack jurisdiction to reach the merits of
this case, I would not suggest to Congress how it might go about assessing and
weighing these equities.
federal courts have jurisdiction to equitably expunge particular criminal records in at least some circumstances, but observing that such authority “comes from decisions that predate Kokkonen . . . or that never discuss or even cite [it]”). 2