United States v. Michals
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Criminal No. 09-CR-00369 (CKK) MONICA MICHALS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (July 18, 2022)
Presently before the Court is pro se Defendant’s [24] Motion to Expunge Criminal Record,
and the Government’s [25] Opposition thereto.1 Defendant contends that having a felony
conviction has obstructed her efforts to secure employment, “which would give [her] financial
security to provide for [her] family” and accordingly, she requests that this Court expunge her
criminal record. Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 24, at 1. In support of her expungement request, Defendant
asserts that she has “not been in any trouble since [she] was released on 10/5/2010.” Id. Upon
review of relevant legal authorities and the pleadings made by the parties, the Court DENIES
Defendant’s [24] Motion to Expunge Criminal Record.
I. BACKGROUND
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 followed by thirty-six
1 This Court permitted Defendant to file a reply to Government’s Opposition by July 5, 2022. Defendant did not file a reply. 1 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 $28,692.31. Defendant’s
Motion to Expunge Criminal Record comes approximately twelve years after her 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 courts 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. Kelley,
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 Court 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 1409761, 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-cv-13395,
2015 WL 268412, at *5 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (citing United States v. Field,
756 F.3d 911, 915(6th Cir. 2014)).
“The court may order expungement where it is required or authorized by statute, or in the exercise
of its inherent equitable powers.” Archer, 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,
2 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 unusual 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 remedy”);
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 violations.”)
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 expungement. 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 Government 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 maintaining criminal records in
3 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. Supp. 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
opportunities 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, outweighs 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 do not constitute
“extreme circumstances” warranting expungement of a criminal record. United States v. Baccous,
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 result 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, in
4 this Circuit, this does not present an extreme or unusual circumstance justifying expungement.”);
United 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
expungement.) Accordingly, the Court lacks the power to expunge Ms. Michals’ criminal record
under these circumstances.
The Court commends Defendant in her efforts to avoid trouble with law enforcement in
the twelve years since her sentencing and acknowledges the barriers her felony conviction may
have on attempts to gain employment or advance therein. That said, Ms. Michals does not present
statutory authority in support of her expungement request, nor does she contend her conviction
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 her criminal record. See Archer,
2012 WL 5818244, at *1 (where defendant claimed that she
“w[ould] be able to fulfill higher level functions at work without the impediments of a prior
conviction,” the court acknowledged 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 her arrest and conviction). Accordingly, for the foregoing
reasons, the Court finds that Ms. 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
5
Reference
- Status
- Published