1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Criminal No. 0 9

- CR

- 00 369 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION ( J uly 1 8 , 20 22 ) Presently before the Court is pro se Defendant ’s [ 24 ] Motion to Expunge Criminal Record , and the Government’s [2 5 ] Opposition thereto. 1 Defendant contends that having a felony conviction has obstructed h er efforts to secure employment , “which would give [her] financial security to provide for [her] family” and accordingly, s he requests that this Court expunge h er criminal record. Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 24, at 1. In support of h er expungement request , Defend ant

a sserts that s he has “not been in any trouble since [she] was released on 10/5/2010.” Id. U pon review of relevant legal authorities and the pleadings made by the parties, the Court DEN IES Defendant’s [ 24 ] Motion to Expunge Criminal Record. I. BACKGRO UND Defendant Monica Michals (“Defendant” or “Ms. Michals”) pled guilty to one count of Taking Property in the Care, Custody and Control of a Credit Union, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2113(b), and she was sentenced to a three month term of imprisonment fol lowed by thirty

- six

1 This Court permitted Defendant to f ile a reply to Government’s Opposition by July 5, 2022

. Defendant did not file a reply. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v. MONICA MICHALS , Defendant.2

months of supervised release. See Judgment, ECF No. 20. In addition, Defendant was ordered to
pay a special assessment fee of $100.00, and restitution in the amount of $ 28,692.3 1 . De fendant’s Motion to Expunge Criminal Record comes ap proximately twelve years after h er sentencing and is opposed by the Government.
II. ANALYSIS

“ The power to order expungement is part of the general power of the federal courts to fashion appropriate remedies to protect important legal rights.” United States v. Archer , Criminal
No. 07

- 0029, 2012 WL 5818244, at *1 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2012) (quoting Doe v. Webster , 606 F.2d 1226, 1231 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). Federal c ourts have the power to order the expungement of government records, such as criminal records, “where necessary to vindicate rights secured by the Constitution or by statute.” Chastain v. Kell e y, 510 F.2d 1232 , 1235 (D.C. Cir. 1975). Indeed,

“ expungement is a potentially available remedy for legally cognizable injuries .” Abdelfattah v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 787 F.3d 524, 538 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “Before expunging a criminal record, the Co urt must find that, after examining the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the ‘remedy is necessary and appropriate in order to preserve basic legal rights.’” United States v.
Davis , No. CR. 342

- 72, 2006 WL 14097 61, at *2 (D.D.C. May 23, 3006 ) (quoting Livingston v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 759 F.2d 74, 78 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). A federal court’s jurisdiction to hear motions to expunge convictions or arrests is “limited” in the absence of an enabling federal statute. Herrington v. Bezotte , No. 14

- c v - 13395, 2015 WL 268412, at *5 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (citing United States v. Field , 756 F.3d 911, 915 (6 th Cir. 2014) )

.

“ The c ourt may order expungement where it is require d or authorized by statute, or in the exercise of its inherent equitable powers.” Arc her , supra . at *1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see United States v. Derouen , 279 F. Supp. 3d 298, 299 (D.D.C. 2018) (Kollar

- Kotelly,3

J.) (same); see also Livingston , supra . at 78 (observing that “courts have the inherent, equitable power to expunge arrest records”) (citations omitted).
There is no “ standalone right to expungement of government records ” recognized in this Circuit. Abdelfattah v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 787 F.3d 524, 536 (D.C. Cir. 2015). When the court exercises its inherent equitable power to order expungement it requires “either a lack of probable cause coupled with specific circumstances, flagrant violations of the Constitution, or other unusua l and extraordinary circumstances.” Webster , 606 F.2d at 1230

- 1231 (since expungement is an equitable remedy, the grant of relief “depends on the facts and circumstances of the case” and requires “a logical relationship between the injury and the requested rem edy”) ;

see also United States v. Blackwell , 45 F. Supp. 3d 123, 124 (D.D.C. 2014) (“Absent a statutory basis authorizing expungement, courts have granted motions to expunge only in extreme circumstances, such as in cases involving flagrant constitutional v iolations.”) In the instant case, Defendant cites no statutory basis in support of her request for expungement. Nor does she allege that her arrest and conviction were improper or that there are unusual or extraordinary circumstances justifying expungem ent. Instead, Ms. Michals seeks expungement of her criminal record on grounds that her conviction has limited her opportunities for employment and advancement within the company for which she works. Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 24, at 1. Accordingly, the Govern ment argues that “Defendant’s motion to expunge her criminal conviction in this case should be summarily denied [because] Defendant fails to proffer any statutory basis for, or any “extraordinary circumstances” justifying her request for equitable relief.” Govt. Opp’n, ECF No. 25, at 2. Furthermore, the Government asserts that it has a “legitimate need to maintain records of arrests and convictions.” Govt. Opp’n, ECF No. 25, at 4. This Circuit is clear that the Government has a “legitimate need in main taining criminal records in4

order to efficiently conduct future criminal investigations.” Webster , 606 F.2d 1226, 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Records assist law enforcement with, inter alia , criminal identification procedures. United States v. Salleh , 863 F. S upp. 283 , 284 (E.D. Va. 1994). As a result, expungements of criminal records are rare without an authorizing statute or extraordinary circumstances. It is undisputed that the existence of a criminal record may pose a “substantial barrier to employment.” Menard v. Saxbe , 498 F.2d 1017, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 1974). This Circuit recognizes that the “adverse effect on job opportunity ” is “ [ t ] he main evil produced by dissemination of arrest records [

. ] ” Morrow v. District of Columbia , 417 F.2d 728, 742 (D.C. Cir. 1969). “Merely citing to the fact that a criminal record may foreclose or present difficulties in finding employment opportunit ies does not [however] meet the fundamental prerequisite of setting out a legally cognizable claim to vindicate rights secured by the Constitution or by statute, for which claim expungement may be appropriate relief.” United States v

. Douglas , 282 F. Supp . 3d 275, 278 (D.D.C. 2017). “The general rule . . . is that expungement of an arrest record is appropriate when serious governmental misbehavior leading to the arrest, or unusually substantial harm to the defendant not in any way attributable to him, out weighs the government’s need for a record of the arrest.” Webster , 606 F.2d at 1231. While defendant’s concerns about employment may be valid, they d o not constitute “extreme circumstances” warranting expungement of a criminal record

. United States v . Ba ccous , Criminal Action No. 99

- 0596, 2013 WL 1707961, at *2 (D.D.C. April 22, 2013); see also United
States v. Woods , 313 F. Supp. 3d 197, 200 (D.D.C. 2018) (“Inability to obtain specific employment is neither an exceptional circumstance nor an unusual resu lt of a criminal conviction.”); United
States v. Evans , 78 F. Supp. 3d 351, 353 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Evans seeks to expunge his criminal record so that it does not appear on background checks run by potential employers . However, in5

this Circuit, this does not present an extreme or unusual circumstance justifying expungement.”);
U nited States v. Robinson , 23 F. Supp. 3d 15, 16 (D.D.C. 2014) (“[E]ven difficulties obtaining employment and securing housing are not regarded as extreme circumstances” justifying
expun gement.) Accordingly, the Court lacks the power to expunge Ms. Michals’ criminal record under these circumstances. The Court commends Defendant in h er efforts to avoid trouble with law enforcement in the t welve years since h er sentencing and acknowledges the barriers h er felony conviction may have on attempts to gain employment or advance therein

. T hat said, Ms. Michals does not present statutory authority in support of h er expungement request, nor does s he contend h er convic tion and arrest were improper so as to warrant expungement

. Defendant’s inability to obtain employment or advance within her employment is on its own insufficient to justify expungement of h er criminal record

. S ee Archer , 2012 WL 5818244, at *1 ( where defendant claim ed that she

“ w[ould] be able to fulfill higher level functions at work with out the impediments of a prior conviction, ” the court acknowl edged that an arrest record can be a “substantial barrier” to gainful employment but found that the harms alleged by defendant did not outweigh the government’s interest in maintaining a record of h er arrest and conviction). Accordingly, for the foregoing

reasons, the Court finds that M s . Michals’ [ 24 ] Motion to Expunge Criminal Record must be denied

. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

__________

/s/

___________________ COLLEEN KOLLAR

- KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE