UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:18-cr-58

vs.

LEONITA NORTH, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR EXPUNGEMENT (DOC. 32)

______________________________________________________________________________

This criminal case is before the Court on Defendant Leonita North’s pro se motion for 

expungement.1 Doc. 32. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Defendant was charged by an information setting forth two misdemeanor criminal counts: 

(1) possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844; and (2) use of, or possession of with 

an intent to use, drug paraphernalia in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 13 and Ohio Rev. Code § 

2925.141. Doc. 1. Defendant initially appeared before the Court on June 13, 2018, at which time, 

after an Assistant Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent her, Defendant was 

arraigned and released on an own recognizance bond. Doc. 7. 

Defendant appeared before the Court again approximately two months later for a change 

of plea hearing on August 15, 2018, at which time she entered a guilty plea to Count 1 of the 

information (Count 2 was then dismissed). Doc. 14. At the conclusion of that hearing, the 

1 Defendant -- who was represented by an Assistant Federal Public Defender, but not proceeds pro 

se -- submitted her request for expungement in a letter addressed and sent to the undersigned. Doc. 32. 

The Court placed Defendant’s letter on the docket and liberally construes such letter as a formal motion 

seeking relief. 
2

undersigned referred the matter for a presentence investigation and report, and again released 

Defendant on the same bond. Doc. 14.

While awaiting sentencing, Defendant was charged with violating her bond and 

summonsed to appear before the Court. Doc. 22. On December 19, 2018, Defendant admitted to 

the bond violation and, after hearing argument from counsel, the undersigned sentenced Defendant 

to two-years of probation on Count 1 of the information. Doc. 25. A judgment entry issued on 

January 4, 2019. Doc. 26.

On March 22, 2019, Defendant was again summonsed to appear before the Court for 

allegedly violating her probation. Doc. 29. Defendant appeared with counsel for a probation 

violation hearing on April 3, 2019, at which time she admitted to four violations of her probation. 

See Minute Entry (Apr. 4, 2019). Thereafter, the Court revoked Defendant’s probation and 

sentenced her to three-days in jail. Doc. 31. Defendant did not file an appeal.

Now, not even six months after her probation was revoked by the Court, Defendant 

requests that the Court expunge her record in this case. Doc. 32. Defendant explains that she: 

“never used marijuana until [she] found out [she] had Crohn’s Disease”; used marijuana with 

respect to the offenses at issue in this criminal matter only because she did not like the side effects 

of her prescribed medication; had never been in trouble before this criminal action; has not used 

marijuana since her incarceration in this matter; is at risk of losing her federal housing voucher for 

her and her two children as a result of her criminal conviction; may be hindered in her efforts to 

re-enroll in nursing school as a result of her conviction. Doc. 32. 

In seeking expungement, Defendant cites no statutory authority upon which this Court has 

jurisdiction to consider her request. Id. The Court, having conducted independent research in this 

regard, finds no statutory authority applicable to the circumstances presented here. While authority 
3

exists for courts to enter expungement orders under certain limited circumstances in cases 

involving prejudgment probation, see 18 U.S.C. § 3607(c), this was not a prejudgment probation 

case. Even if it were, Defendant admittedly violated her probation; her probation was revoked;

and she was -- less than six months ago -- sentenced to a term of incarceration as a result of her 

admitted probation violation. See doc. 31.

While “federal courts may assert ancillary jurisdiction to expunge criminal records” in the 

absence of “statutorily-grounded permission to expunge,” such ancillary jurisdiction does not 

extend to “motions for expungement that are grounded on purely equitable considerations -- e.g., 

motions alleging that the movant has maintained good conduct and that the record of arrest harms 

the movant’s employment opportunities.” United States v. Field, 756 F.3d 911, 915 (6th Cir. 

2014). Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court possessed jurisdiction to consider, in its 

discretion, whether to grant an expungement, the undersigned -- although empathetic and 

sympathetic to Defendant’s circumstances -- finds no exceptional circumstances present to 

expunge Defendant’s conviction. This is so in light of the repeated bond and probation violations 

noted above, as well as the fact that not even six months have elapsed since the Court was required 

to revoke Defendant’s probation and sentence her to a term of incarceration.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion (doc. 32) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 23, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge