IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

Willie Stephens, 

 Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 1:97-cr-87 

Judge Susan J. Dlott 

Order Denying Motion to Expunge 

This matter is before the Court on Willie Stephens’s pro se Motion for Expungement. 

(Doc. 161.) For the reasons set forth herein, Stephens’s Motion will be DENIED. 

On December 12, 1997, Stephens pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled 

substance. He was sentenced to thirty-three months of imprisonment followed by five years of 

supervised release on March 31, 1998. On May 3, 2023, Stephens filed a short motion 

requesting that his conviction be expunged. (Doc. 161.) 

Before the Court can consider the merits of Stephens’s Motion, it must first consider the 

fundamental question of its power to do so—that is, whether the Court possesses jurisdiction 

over the Motion. “As courts of limited jurisdiction, federal courts possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute and may not expand that power by judicial decree.” 

United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871, 873 (6th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). The burden lies with 

the party requesting an expungement to establish the court has jurisdiction. United States v. 

Fourtounis, No. 1:10-CR-00090, 2018 WL 6267757, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2018). Within 

the Sixth Circuit, there are two possible avenues for jurisdiction over a motion to expunge: a 

Case: 1:97-cr-00087-SJD Doc #: 162 Filed: 06/22/23 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 81
2

statutorily-grounded authority to expunge or the limited doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction.1

 

United States v. Field, 756 F.3d 911, 914–15 (6th Cir. 2014). The Court will address each in 

turn. 

Regarding the first avenue, “Congress has not passed any statute granting the district 

courts general authority to expunge an otherwise valid criminal conviction.” United States v. 

Williams, No. 1:04-cr-126(14), 2015 WL 13528895, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2015) (quoting 

United States v. Welch, No. 1:05-cr-158, 2007 WL 4465256, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2007)). 

Congress has, however, enacted certain federal statutes “explicitly permit[ting] the expungement 

of criminal records under limited circumstances.” Fourtounis, 2018 WL 6267757, at *1; see 

also United States v. Belfer, No. 1:62-CR-321, 2018 WL 3374069, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 11, 

2018) (listing statutory examples). Here, Stephens has not pointed to, nor is the Court aware of, 

any statute explicitly authorizing expungement in the circumstances presented. Thus, the Court 

lacks a statutory basis for asserting jurisdiction. 

Even in the absence of direct statutory authority, a district court may entertain a request 

to expunge under the narrow doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. Ancillary jurisdiction involves 

“proceedings that are related to, although technically separate from, the original case over which 

the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.” Fourtounis, 2018 WL 6267757, at *2. “A district 

court’s ancillary expungement power is rarely exercised[.]” United States v. Ross, No. 3:97-CR44-RGJ, 2021 WL 2908114, at *2 (W.D. Ky. July 9, 2021). In Field, the Sixth Circuit reiterated 

the limited ambit of ancillary jurisdiction to hear motions to expunge, holding that federal courts 

1

 A federal court also possesses jurisdiction when the court has original jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which 

confers jurisdiction for “all offenses against the laws of the United States.” Lucido, 612 F.3d at 873–74. Because a 

“motion for expungement is a request for an equitable form of relief seeking to alter public records” and “does not 

involve an offense against the United States,” 18 U.S.C. § 3231 does not provide a basis for jurisdiction over a 

motion to expunge. United States v. Daniels, No. 03-50015, 2016 WL 4168647, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2016). 

Case: 1:97-cr-00087-SJD Doc #: 162 Filed: 06/22/23 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 82
3

“retain ancillary jurisdiction over motions challenging an unconstitutional conviction,” but “lack 

ancillary jurisdiction over motions for expungement based on purely equitable considerations,” 

such as “motions alleging that the movant has maintained good conduct and that the record of 

arrest harms the movant’s employment opportunities.” 756 F.3d at 915–16; see also United 

States v. Valueland Auto Sales, Inc., 847 F. App’x 344, 346 (6th Cir. 2021) (“[D]istrict courts 

don’t have jurisdiction over motions for expungement premised solely on equitable 

considerations.”). Thus, “federal courts have most readily invoked the expungement power with 

respect to illegal convictions, convictions under statutes later deemed unconstitutional, and 

convictions obtained through governmental misconduct.” United States v. Robinson, No. 94-

1945, 1996 WL 107129, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 1996); see also United States v. Whitson, No. 

2:99-CR-071, 2006 WL 2645139, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 2006) (“While expungement may 

be warranted in cases in which the conviction was obtained illegally or through governmental 

misconduct, or in cases involving convictions under statutes later deemed unconstitutional, 

expungement of a valid conviction is rarely, if ever, warranted.”) (emphasis in original). And 

even if a motion for expungement challenges an unconstitutional conviction, exercising ancillary 

jurisdiction must “enable the court to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and 

effectuate its decrees.” Field, 756 F.3d at 916 (quotations omitted). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it lacks ancillary jurisdiction over Stephens’s 

Motion. First, Stephens has not identified any ground that would permit the assertion of 

ancillary jurisdiction. No claim of a constitutional nature is presented, and Stephens does not 

challenge the legality of his conviction. While a criminal conviction can make it more difficult 

for people to find employment or housing, the Court is bound by Sixth Circuit precedent, and, as 

such, may not assert ancillary jurisdiction based on these equitable considerations. See, e.g., 

Case: 1:97-cr-00087-SJD Doc #: 162 Filed: 06/22/23 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 83
4

Valueland Auto Sales, 847 F. App’x at 345 (“Field further acknowledged our lack of jurisdiction 

over motions for expungement based on purely equitable considerations.”) (quotations omitted); 

United States v. Fortunato, No. 92-CR-80654, 2021 WL 493357 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2021) 

(denying motion to expunge due to lack of jurisdiction where movant claimed her criminal 

record prevented her from obtaining employment); United States v. Deer, 249 F. Supp. 3d 876 

(N.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2017) (same). And second, with the Court having entered final judgment in 

this case several decades ago, the Court is unable to discern how the exercise of jurisdiction over 

the Motion would allow it “to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its 

decrees.” Field, 756 F.3d at 916; see also United States v. Thomas, No. 1:06CR321, 2020 WL 

1171612, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 11, 2020) (reaching same conclusion based on fourteen-year-old 

conviction). 

Several courts in this circuit have held that, despite Lucido, district courts retain equitable 

jurisdiction to hear motions seeking expungement. United States v. Locklear, No. 2:05-cr-56, 

2013 WL 1338716 (S.D. Ohio April 1, 2013); Williams, 2015 WL 13528895 at *1. However, 

the Court of Appeals has made clear that Lucido is the law of this circuit and courts lack general 

equitable jurisdiction over motions to expunge. Valueland Auto Sales, 847 F.App’x at 345. 

The inherent difficulties all ex-convicts face in trying to put the past behind them and 

move on with their lives is not lost on the Court. However, the Court ultimately lacks the 

authority to grant Stephens the requested relief. Accordingly, Stephens’s Motion to Expunge 

(Doc. 161) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 S/Susan J. Dlott_________________ 

 Judge Susan J. Dlott 

 United States District Court 

Case: 1:97-cr-00087-SJD Doc #: 162 Filed: 06/22/23 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 84