Opinion
Case No. 3:98cr59 (1)
01-14-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SEAN L. SHARPE, Defendant.
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR SEALFNG RECORD OF CONVICTION/JUDICIAL EXPUNGEMENT (DOC. #17)
On January 22, 1999, the Defendant, having been convicted of one count of dealing in counterfeit obligations and aiding and abetting same, was sentenced to two years of probation (Doc. #14). Said sentence was journalized in a Judgment and Commitment Entry filed January 27, 1999 (Doc. #15).
Following his successful discharge from probation, Defendant filed, through counsel, an application for sealing record of conviction/judicial expungement (Doc. #17). Although the Court gave both the Government and the Defendant the opportunity to further brief the matter, only the Defendant has done so (Doc. #21).
Said legal argument fails for one dispositive reason, to wit: Sixth Circuit law, and the district courts thereunder, have made it crystal clear that there exists no statutory or common law means by which the relief sought by the Defendant can be obtained. See United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Tippie, No. 3:08-cr-288, 2013 WL 4782370 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2013).
It is axiomatic that, as "courts of limited jurisdiction," federal courts "possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The power of this Court to hear the criminal case that the United States brought against Defendant arose under statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 ("The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States"). However, the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant's case ended when final judgment against him was entered. Lucido, 612 F.3d at 874. Furthermore, "[t]he statutory premise for the court's original authority over [the defendant] thus does not by itself provide a basis for considering [his] expungement motions." Id.
In Lucido, the Sixth Circuit expressly held that "the federal courts lack ancillary jurisdiction to consider expungement motions," joining a number of other Circuit Courts of Appeal that "have declined to recognize ancillary jurisdiction under § 3231 to entertain expungement motions and have revisited contrary pre- Kokkonen circuit authority in the process." Id. at 876 (citations omitted). Thus, some independent source of authority must exist, apart from such ancillary jurisdiction, for the Court to hear Defendant's expungement request.
Defendant cites United States v. Doe, 556 F.2d 391 (6th Cir. 1977), for the proposition that his expungement request properly lies within the inherent equitable powers of this Court. Doc. #21 at 4. However, the Sixth Circuit recognized in Lucido that Doe "cannot be reconciled" with the Supreme Court's Kokkonen holding, because Doe "extends the courts' jurisdiction beyond that provided by the Constitution, by statute and by the limited doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction." 612 F.3d at 876. Thus, whatever inherent authority that may have allowed a district court to order expungement as a remedy under Doe was abrogated by Kokkonen, as expressly recognized by the Sixth Circuit in Lucido. In short, the Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief Defendant requests.
While this Court firmly believes that legislation should be enacted by Congress that would allow persons who truly have made significant strides in putting the past behind them and becoming law abiding, productive and contributing citizens, to have their records expunged, this Court is without the power to either enact that legislation or to disregard binding authority. An appeal from this Court's decision, presenting the issues squarely before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, would be welcomed by this Court.
__________________________
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: U.S. Attorney's Office Elizabeth C. Scott, Esq. Sean L. Sharpe, 6018 Densmore Drive, Houston, TX 77035