Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-6_05-mj-00107/USCOURTS-caed-6_05-mj-00107-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
USA
Plaintiff
Susan Verutti
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

SUSAN VERUTTI, )

)

Defendant. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

6: 05- mj- 00107 WMW 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF

CRIMINAL RECORD

On June 25, 2007, the court received from Defendant a request for expungement of

the record of this criminal case. 

The issue of expungement of records of federal criminal convictions is discussed

thoroughly in United States of America v. Crowell, 374 F.2d 790 (9 Cir. 2004). In that

th

opinion, the court states in part as follows:

Congress has not expressly granted to the federal courts a general power to

expunge criminal records. Nevertheless, we have asserted that federal courts have

inherent authority to expunge criminal records in appropriate and extraordinary cases.

We have held that in criminal proceedings “district courts possess ancillary

Case 6:05-mj-00107-WMW Document 15 Filed 08/23/07 Page 1 of 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 2

jurisdiction to expunge criminal records. That jurisdiction flows out of the

congressional grant of jurisdiction to hear cases involving offenses against the United

States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231.” [United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014

(9th Cir.2000).] We have also held, however, that district courts do not have the

power “to expunge a record of a valid arrest and conviction solely for equitable

considerations,” because “the expungement of the record of a valid arrest and

conviction usurps the powers that the framers of the Constitution allocated to

Congress, the Executive, and the states.” Id. Accordingly, “a district court's ancillary

jurisdiction is limited to expunging the record of an unlawful arrest or conviction, or

to correcting a clerical error.” Id.

In this case, Defendant does not claim that her arrest or conviction was unlawful, or that any

clerical error was made. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to expunge the record of her

criminal conviction. 

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to scan into the electronic filing system the

documents which the court received from Defendant on June 25, 2007;

3. Defendant’s request for expungement of the record of this case is DENIED;

4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve Defendant with a paper copy of this

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:05-mj-00107-WMW Document 15 Filed 08/23/07 Page 2 of 2