Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_90-cr-00245/USCOURTS-azd-4_90-cr-00245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gildardo Mendoza-Zapien
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Gildardo Mendoza-Zapien,

Defendant.

No. CR-90-00245-001-TUC-SHR

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion Requesting an Order of 

Expungement (Doc. 49). The Government did not respond to the Motion. The Motion 

does not challenge the validity or constitutionality of Defendant’s conviction but instead 

asks the Court to rest its decision on equitable grounds.1 For the following reasons, the 

Court declines to do so.

Defendant bears the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction to expunge the 

record of a valid arrest and conviction on equitable grounds. See United States v. 

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 

1010 (9th Cir. 2000). “Federal 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.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 (internal citations omitted). 

1For this analysis, the Court will assume there was a valid arrest and conviction 

because Defendant does not argue otherwise. 

Case 4:90-cr-00245-SHR Document 51 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Since no federal expungement statute exists, the only legal basis to give this Court 

jurisdiction to adjudicate Defendant’s Motion is the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. See

Sumner, 226 F.3d at 1014. “Ancillary jurisdiction is the power of a court to adjudicate and 

determine matters incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over a cause under 

review.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has held district courts do not possess ancillary jurisdiction 

to expunge criminal records of a valid arrest and conviction solely based on equity. Id. 

Here, the conviction was lawful and constitutional. The equitable grounds 

Defendant raised in his Motion cannot satisfy his burden to establish jurisdiction. 

Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant expungement in this case. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED Defendant's Motion (Doc. 49) is DENIED. 

Dated this 4th day of October, 2023.

Case 4:90-cr-00245-SHR Document 51 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 2