Filed: May 01, 2015
Latest Update: May 01, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT THOMAS M. DIGIROLAMO , Magistrate Judge . This mailer is belore the Court on Defendant"s request to expunge his criminal conviction lor possession of marijuana. No hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6. On September 16,2013, Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana in violation of 36 C.F.R. 2.35(b)(2) and was placed on probation for one year. Defendant now seeks expungement of his criminal conviction because he "need[s] [his] record [expunged]."
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT THOMAS M. DIGIROLAMO , Magistrate Judge . This mailer is belore the Court on Defendant"s request to expunge his criminal conviction lor possession of marijuana. No hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6. On September 16,2013, Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana in violation of 36 C.F.R. 2.35(b)(2) and was placed on probation for one year. Defendant now seeks expungement of his criminal conviction because he "need[s] [his] record [expunged]." ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
THOMAS M. DIGIROLAMO, Magistrate Judge.
This mailer is belore the Court on Defendant"s request to expunge his criminal conviction lor possession of marijuana. No hearing is necessary. L.R. 105.6.
On September 16,2013, Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.35(b)(2) and was placed on probation for one year. Defendant now seeks expungement of his criminal conviction because he "need[s] [his] record [expunged]."
Because there is no applicable statute providing lor expungement in a case such as this one, the only available jurisdictional basis is the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. Uniled Siaies v. McKnighl, 33 F.Supp.3d 577, 580 (D. Md. 2014).
[F]ederal courts generally may invoke the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction in two circumstances: (I) where necessary to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are factually interdependent; and (2) "to enable a court to lunction successfully, that is. to manage its procecding, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees."
Id. (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 379-80 (1994)).
Here, the adjudicative facts underlying Defcndant"s conviction are not intcrdependent with the equitable considerations raised by Defendant's request for expungement. See United States v. Harris, 847 F.Supp.2d 828, 834 (D. Md. 2012). Furthcr, expungcmcnt of Defendant's criminal conviction runs contrary to a federal court's ability to vindicate its authority and effectuate its decrees. See id. at 834-35; United States v. Mitchell, 683 F.Supp.2d 427, 432-33 (E.D. Va. 2010). Because the Court accordingly lacks ancillary jurisdiction, Defendant's rcqucst to expunge his criminal conviction is DENIED.
