Lowe v. United States of America

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Petitioner's motion to expunge 1 her criminal record is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to petitioner and close this case. ORDER ATTACHED. Ordered by Judge Natasha C. Merle on 11/22/2024. (copy mailed). (AG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PHYLICIA LOWE,
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
24-mc-03326 (NCM)

– against –
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

NATASHA C. MERLE, United States District Judge:
Pro se petitioner Phylicia Lowe moves to expunge the record of her criminal
conviction of one count of importation of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1),
and 960(b)(3). See Mot. at 1, ECF No. 1; Judgment, No. 13-cr-00595, ECF No. 12.1 On
September 5, 2024, the Court permitted petitioner to supplement her motion and noted
that failure to reply to the Order may result in denial of her motion. Petitioner did not file
a response. For the reasons stated below, petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, restricting the types of cases they can
hear. See Funk v. Belneftekhim, 861 F.3d 354, 371 (2d Cir. 2017). District courts generally
lack subject matter jurisdiction over motions to expunge valid criminal convictions. See
Doe v. United States, 833 F.3d 192, 198–99 (2d Cir. 2016). Therefore, absent an express
grant of authority from Congress, a district court lacks the power to expunge valid

For petitioner’s motion to expunge (the “Motion”), the Court uses the ECFgenerated page numbers indicated in the header.
1

1

criminal convictions. Id.; see, e.g., Blair v. United States, No. 23-mc-00688, 2023 WL
5417357, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023) (denying motion to expunge criminal record for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Lee v. United States, No. 22-mc-02137, 2024 WL
3535436, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2024) (same).
Petitioner does not point to an authorizing statute granting the Court power to
expunge her record. See generally Mot. Instead, petitioner moves to expunge her criminal
conviction on the basis that “[i]n the past [she] made mistakes,” but is now “a mom
presuing [sic] a career with a degree.” Mot. at 2. Petitioner does not assert that her
criminal conviction is invalid and solely seeks relief on the basis of equity, requesting
“leniency” and “mercy” from the Court. Mot. at 2.
Petitioner did not respond to this Court’s order, which notified her of the deficiency
in her motion and allowed her an opportunity to supplement her briefing. See ECF Order
dated Sep. 5, 2024.
Since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to expunge petitioner’s record, the
Court must deny her motion and dismiss her case. 2

However, the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to expunge petitioner’s criminal
conviction does not bar petitioner from seeking other forms of relief, such as those
afforded under state or local law. See, e.g., Yearwood v. United States, No. 18-mc-01835,
2022 WL 4662091, at *2 n.3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022) (noting possible relief under New
York State law); N.Y. Corr. Law §§ 750–755 (preventing discrimination against
individuals with previous convictions and detailing factors to be considered).
2

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, petitioner’s motion to expunge her criminal record
is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to
petitioner and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
__/s/ Natasha C. Merle____
NATASHA C. MERLE
United States District Judge
Dated:

November 22, 2024
Brooklyn, New York

3