Maximoff v. United States of America

Filing 3

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 1/7/16. (CLA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION JERRY PAUL MAXIMOFF, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:15CV1637 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Jerry Maximoff’s petition to have his felony convictions expunged. The Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. As a result, this action is dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy with intent to distribute methamphetamine. United States v. Maximoff, No. 2:05CR922 GMS-2 (D. Ariz.); United States v. Maximoff, No. 2:15CR1071 EHC-1 (D. Ariz.). One condition of his supervised release is that he may “not possess or attempt to acquire any firearm . . .” Petitioner states that this condition is preventing him from providing for his family. He says he needs a firearm to hunt, so that he can “supply meat at [his] family’s table.” This Court has limited jurisdiction to expunge criminal records. A district court has no jurisdiction “to expunge criminal records based solely on equitable considerations [] without an express grant of authority from Congress.” United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855, 862 (8th Cir. 2006). In the absence of “an allegation that the criminal proceedings were invalid or illegal, a District Court does not have the jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record.” United States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 480 (3d Cir. 2001). Petitioner has not relied on any constitutional provision or federal statute in his request. Nor has he alleged that his conviction was obtained illegally or is invalid for any other reason. His request lies solely on equitable grounds. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. The Court previously ordered petitioner to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. He failed to file a timely response. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Dated this 7th day of January, 2016 ___________________________________ HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?