Pickron v. USA

Filing 5

ORDER denying 1 Motion to Expunge. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Petitioner's motion to expunge is denied without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner, note service on the docket, and close this case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/19/2022. (Ahn, Lois)

Case 1:19-mc-01442-KAM Document 5 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------- X
JINNATE NICHOLE PICKRON,
Petitioner,

ORDER
19-MC-1442 (KAM)

-againstUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
---------------------------------- X

MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On February 24, 2010, Petitioner Jinnate Nichole Pickron
(“Petitioner”), after a jury trial, was convicted of wire fraud
and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1343 and 1349. 1

(ECF No. 262, Jury Verdict, 09-CR-292.)

On

September 10, 2010, Judge John Gleeson sentenced Petitioner to a
three-year term of probation, which included six months of home
detention.

(ECF No. 352, Judgment, 09-CR-292.)
On May 31, 2019, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a

motion with this Court seeking an Order expunging her record of
conviction.

(ECF No. 1, Petitioner’s Motion (“Pet’r Mot.”).)

Petitioner asserts that she was suspended for two weeks without
pay and was subsequently terminated from a job because she was
unable to obtain a license from the California Department of

Petitioner was prosecuted under her maiden name, Jones, but has since changed
her name to Pickron after getting married. (See ECF No. 2.)
1

1

Case 1:19-mc-01442-KAM Document 5 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 20

Housing and Community Development due to her criminal record. (ECF
No. 1).

Petitioner claims that the expungement of her conviction

record would allow her to get a good job, pay her bills, and send
her son to college, and that she is very remorseful and takes full
responsibility
government

for

argues

her
in

past

criminal

response

that

conduct.

the

Court

(Id.)
should

The

dismiss

Petitioner’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
No.

4).

For

the

reasons

stated

below,

the

Court

(ECF

denies

Petitioner’s motion without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
“In general, federal district courts do not have subject
matter

jurisdiction

over

motions

to

expunge

or

seal

a

valid

conviction record, except in limited circumstances authorized by
Congress,” United States v. King, No. 14-CR-357(PKC), 2017 WL
4326492, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2017) (quoting Doe v. United
States, 833 F.3d 192, 197 (2d Cir. 2016)), and cannot exercise
ancillary jurisdiction to do so.

Doe, 833 F.3d at 196-99 (the

district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to expunge
the defendant’s record of conviction because none of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure “remotely suggest[ ] . . . that
district courts retain jurisdiction over any type of motion years
after a criminal case has concluded,” and expungement of a criminal
record on equitable grounds does not serve any of the bases
2

Case 1:19-mc-01442-KAM Document 5 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 21

identified in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 379‒80 (1994), for exercising ancillary jurisdiction).

See

Agudelo v. United States, Nos. 18-MC-1427(JMA), 94-CR-636(TCP),
2022 WL 541603, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (“Once a defendant
has served her sentence and the court’s decrees have long since
expired, expunging a record of conviction on equitable grounds is
entirely unnecessary to manage [a court’s] proceedings, vindicate
its authority, [or] effectuate its decrees.” (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)); Patterson v. United States, No. 19MC-2986(LDH), 2020 WL 5820155, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020)
(“[W]here . . . a petitioner moves to expunge a valid conviction
on equitable grounds, the district court lacks jurisdiction.”
(citations

omitted));

United

States

v.

Rodriguez,

No.

01-CR-

497(RMB), 2020 WL 881991, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020) (“The
Court does not have jurisdiction to expunge criminal records based
solely

upon

equitable

grounds

such

as

those

cited

by

[the]

[p]etitioner, namely his belief that the criminal conviction(s) in
this case may be preventing his advancement in the workplace.”
(citations omitted)); Melvin v. United States, No. 18-MC-3359(LB),
2019

WL

petition

5394646,
for

at

*2

expungement

(E.D.N.Y.
because

Oct.
the

21,

2019)

“petitioner

(dismissing
[did]

not

challenge the validity of her conviction, and the underlying
criminal

case

concluded

almost

a

decade

ago.

.

.

.

[and]

[p]etitioner has not supplied other facts that could distinguish
3

Case 1:19-mc-01442-KAM Document 5 Filed 09/19/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 22

her case from Doe or qualify for the limited exceptions that would
allow the Court to consider the motion.”).
In the instant case, Petitioner does not challenge the
validity of her conviction for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit
wire fraud, and states in her motion that she “take[s] full
responsibility for [her] actions.”

(Pet’r Mot at 6.)

Nor has

Petitioner pointed to any statutory exception that would confer
jurisdiction upon this Court to consider her motion.

Accordingly,

though the Court is very sympathetic of Petitioner’s situation, it
lacks jurisdiction to grant Petitioner the relief she seeks.

For

the foregoing reasons, the Court respectfully denies Petitioner’s
motion without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of
this Order on Petitioner, note service on the docket, and close
this case.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:

September 19, 2022
Brooklyn, New York

__________/s/_______________
HON. KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge

4