United States v. Blackwell , 45 F. Supp. 3d 123 ( 2014 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) Criminal Action No. 90-87 (RWR)
)
CECELIA BLACKWELL, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendant Cecelia Blackwell moves to expunge the record of
her criminal conviction from 1993. The government opposes
Blackwell’s motion. Because Blackwell presents no extreme
circumstances that would warrant expunging her record, her
motion will be denied.
Blackwell was convicted of distribution of cocaine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Blackwell was
sentenced to fifteen months of incarceration and three years of
supervised release. Blackwell now moves to expunge her criminal
record, alleging that her record has made it difficult for her
advance her career and “obtain[] a new salary.” See Def.’s Mot.
to Expunge Crim. Record at 1.
The government opposes Blackwell’s motion, arguing that
Blackwell has not demonstrated that “extraordinary
circumstances” exist to justify her request to expunge her
-2-
criminal record. Govt.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mots. to Expunge Her
Crim. Record at 2.
“The judicial remedy of expungement is inherent and is not
dependent on express statutory provision, and it exists to
vindicate substantial rights provided by statute as well as by
organic law[.]” Menard v. Saxbe, 498 F.2d 1017, 1023 (D.C. Cir.
1974); see also Chastain v. Kelley, 510 F.2d 1232, 1235 (D.C.
Cir. 1975) (“The federal courts are empowered to order the
expungement of Government records where necessary to vindicate
rights secured by the Constitution or by statute.”). “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, Criminal Action
No. 342-72 (TFH), 2006 WL 1409761, at *2 (D.D.C. May 23, 2006)
(quoting Livingston v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 759 F.2d 74, 78
(D.C. Cir. 1985)). “[R]elief usually is granted only in extreme
circumstances, the finding of which requires a balancing of the
equities between the right of privacy of the individual and the
right of law enforcement officers to perform their necessary
duties.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
-3-
Absent a statutory basis authorizing expungement, courts
have granted motions to expunge only in extreme circumstances,
such as in cases involving flagrant constitutional violations.
See, e.g., Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2d 1226, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
(“[A]lthough there are indeed many instances in which courts
have ordered expungement of arrest records in the exercise of
their inherent equitable powers, all of these cases involved
either a lack of probable cause coupled with special
circumstances, flagrant violations of the Constitution, or other
unusual and extraordinary circumstances.” (footnotes omitted)).
Under this showing, difficulties obtaining additional or advance
employment is not regarded as an extreme circumstance. See,
e.g., United States v. Baccous, Criminal Action No. 99-0596
(DAR), 2013 WL 1707961, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2013) (finding
“that no such ‘extreme circumstances’ are present. Defendant’s
concerns regarding his employment and residential opportunities
are unquestionably valid; however, under existing law, they do
not afford the court discretion to expunge his record.”); In re
Reid, 569 F. Supp. 2d 220, 222 (D.D.C. 2008) (“[W]hile this
Circuit has long recognized the fact that a criminal record
causes social disabilities, the harm of being unable to obtain
employment is insufficient on its own[.]” (citation omitted)).
-4-
Blackwell seeks to expunge her criminal record to expand
her employment and salary opportunities. However, this does not
present an extreme or unusual circumstance justifying
expungement under the case law in this Circuit. See, e.g.,
Baccous, 2013 WL 1707961, at *2; In re Reid, 569 F. Supp. 2d at
222. Blackwell has not demonstrated that the remedy she seeks
is “necessary and appropriate in order to preserve basic legal
rights.” Livingston, 759 F.2d at 78 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Specifically, Blackwell does not challenge the
legality of her conviction on constitutional or statutory
grounds, or present any other cognizable legal injury that the
D.C. Circuit would recognize as justifying granting her motion
to expunge her criminal record. See, e.g., Webster, 606 F.2d at
1231 (“[A]bsent specific statutory authority it would be wholly
inappropriate to order such an expungement in a case such as
this where there has been not only a valid arrest but a valid
conviction.”); Davis, 2006 WL 1409761, at *2 (“The Court, while
not unsympathetic to Defendant’s dilemma as represented by him,
can find no basis for expunging his criminal record. The
Defendant has cited no statutory authority for expunging his
conviction, and the Court is aware of none.”).
While Blackwell’s efforts to care for her family are
laudable and the fact that Blackwell’s conviction from over 20
-5-
years ago may pose a barrier to obtaining employment is
unfortunate, there is no legal basis to grant Blackwell the
relief she seeks in her motion. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant Cecelia Blackwell’s motion [29] to
expunge her criminal record be, and hereby is, DENIED.
SIGNED this 30 day of May, 2014.
___/s/___________
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
Chief Judge