Dixon v. United States of America

Filing 9

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Dismiss. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/18/2014. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TERRY D. DIXON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14–cv–0703–MJR

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
In December 2013, via counsel, Plaintiff Terry Dixon (who was convicted of
conspiracy in 1987 and completed his sentence long ago) filed a “Petition to Vacate or
Expunge Conviction.” 1 The Government filed a Response in Opposition in May 2014.
The undersigned construed the Response, which contained a comprehensive argument
aimed at Dixon’s instant case, as a Motion to Dismiss, and ordered Dixon to respond on
or before July 21, 2014. Though Dixon’s counsel was notified via the Court’s Electronic
Case Filing system, no response to the Government’s motion to dismiss has ever been
filed.
By local rule, failure to file a timely response may be considered an admission of
the merits of a motion.

SDIL-LR 7.1(c).

The Court exercises its discretion and,

considering Dixon’s failure to respond an admission that his case has no merit,
GRANTS (Doc. 5) the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.

1

Even assuming arguendo

The case was filed as a Miscellaneous Action, then reassigned Civil Case No. 14-0703.

1

Dixon had filed a full-throated response, the Court cannot envision a situation where
Mr. Dixon—who was convicted on conspiracy and stolen property charges relating to a
car theft scheme—can earn the “extraordinary remedy” of expungement.

U.S. v.

Flowers, 389 F.3d 737, 739 (7th Cir. 2004). In Flowers, the Seventh Circuit reiterated
that, to outweigh the interest in maintaining accurate and undoctored records, a
movant must show uniquely significant (or “truly extraordinary”) unwarranted adverse
consequences.

Id.

The panel juxtaposed convictions stemming from government

harassment during a 1963 Selma, Alabama voter registration drive—a truly
extraordinary situation—with crimes that concern no more than a routine, valid
criminal conviction with the “usual attendant consequences.” Id. at 739–40. This case
falls in the latter category. See also id. (“[I]f employment problems resulting from a
criminal record were sufficient to outweigh the government’s interest in maintaining
criminal records, expunction would no longer be the narrow, extraordinary exception,
but a generally available remedy.”) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
The Court is encouraged by the Complaint’s narrative 2 that Mr. Dixon has not
re-offended for over a quarter of a century, has raised two accomplished daughters, and
acts as sole caregiver for a mentally-challenged relative. But the Government’s Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 18, 2014

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

The Court is not, of course, coming down one way or another on whether the contents of the Complaint
are true.
2

2