Doe v. United States
2015 WL 2452613, 110 F.Supp.3d 448 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal district court may exercise its ancillary jurisdiction and equitable discretion to expunge a valid criminal conviction in extraordinary circumstances, which exist when the significant and ongoing harm to the individual, such as a permanent barrier to employment, far outweighs the public's interest in maintaining the conviction as a public record.
Facts:
- In 1983, Jane Doe, a single mother, immigrated to New York from Haiti.
- By 1997, Doe was raising four children alone on an income lower than her monthly rent.
- In August 1997, motivated by dire financial circumstances, Doe participated as a passenger in a staged automobile accident as part of an insurance fraud scheme, for which she ultimately received $2,500.
- The scheme involved feigning injuries so a corrupt clinic could bill insurance companies for unnecessary services.
- In 2001, Doe was convicted of one count of health care fraud.
- In the thirteen years following her conviction, Doe has been repeatedly hired for home health aide positions and subsequently terminated after her employers discovered her conviction through background checks.
- Doe has been unable to maintain steady employment due to her conviction and has had no further contact with the criminal justice system since the offense.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government prosecuted Jane Doe in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- Following a jury trial in 2001, Doe was convicted of one count of health care fraud.
- The district court sentenced Doe on March 25, 2002, to five years' probation, ten months of home detention, and restitution.
- Doe completed her sentence, and her probation was terminated on March 24, 2007.
- On October 30, 2014, Doe filed an application in the same district court that sentenced her, seeking the equitable remedy of expungement of her conviction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court have the equitable discretion to expunge a valid, nonviolent felony conviction when the petitioner demonstrates that the conviction creates an extreme and undue hardship, specifically the inability to maintain employment, that outweighs the government's interest in maintaining the record?
Opinions:
Majority - Gleeson, J.
Yes, a federal district court may exercise its equitable discretion to expunge a valid conviction under such extreme and extraordinary circumstances. The court possesses ancillary jurisdiction to hear motions for expungement and must balance the equities between the government's interest in maintaining criminal records and the harm they cause to the individual. Here, the circumstances are extraordinary because Doe's offense is distant in time, she was a minor participant in a non-violent crime motivated by poverty, and she has remained law-abiding for nearly two decades. The conviction has created a nearly insurmountable barrier to her employment, forcing her onto public assistance despite her desire and ability to work. The public’s interest in Doe being an employed, tax-paying member of society far outweighs its interest in her conviction remaining a public record, especially since the nature of her crime does not suggest she poses a heightened risk to health care employers.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for recognizing that severe collateral consequences, particularly a long-term, systemic inability to secure employment, can constitute the 'extraordinary circumstances' required for the equitable expungement of a valid conviction. It represents a departure from the common judicial reluctance to grant such relief based solely on employment hardship. The opinion emphasizes a rehabilitative approach, arguing that society is better served when individuals with past convictions can re-enter the workforce, thereby challenging the punitive permanence of a criminal record. This case may serve as persuasive authority for future petitioners who can demonstrate that a conviction has effectively become a 'lifetime sentence to unemployment,' shifting the judicial balancing test more toward individual redemption.
Unlock the full brief for Doe v. United States