Nordberg v. United States of America

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 5 Motion to Seal Case; denying 1 Motion to Expunge Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Expunge Motion (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court close this case and mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Petitioner at her address of record. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/9/2024. (CV)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------X
JULIE NORDBERG,
Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
21-MC-3118(JS)

-againstUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.
-------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner:
Julie Nordberg
226 Main Street, Unit 14
Old Saybrook, Connecticut
For Respondent:

06475

Megan Elizabeth Farrell, Esq.,
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office,
Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Presently

before

the

Court

is

the

motion

of

Julia

Nordberg (“Petitioner” or “Nordberg”), proceeding pro se, seeking
the expungement of her criminal record (hereafter, the “Expunge
Motion”).

(See ECF No. 1; see also Reply, ECF No. 5. 1)

Government opposes said Motion. (See Opp’n, ECF No. 3.)

The

For the

reasons that follow, the Expunge Motion is DENIED.

While docketed as a “Motion to Seal”, the Court deems Nordberg’s
subsequent March 14, 2023 submission to be her Reply to the
Government’s Response in Opposition to the Expunge Motion in which
Nordberg requests alternative relief in the form of having her
criminal case sealed.
1

Page 1 of 8

BACKGROUND
The
Petitioner’s

Court

assumes

underlying

the

parties’

criminal

case,

(hereinafter, the “Criminal Case”).

Case

familiarity
No.

with

02-CR-01397

For the reader’s convenience,

the Court summarily states the following.
I.

The Criminal Case
On December 20, 2002, Nordberg pled guilty to two counts

of a three-count Information, admitting she made, subscribed, and
filed false federal income tax returns on April 15, 1999.
Opp’n at 1.)

(See

Thereafter, on October 16, 2003, Nordberg was

sentenced to five years of supervised release and ordered to pay
a $500 fine.

(Id. (citing Sent’g Hr’g Minute Entry, ECF No. 12;

Judgment, ECF No. 13).))
On
motion,

April

Petitioner

supervision.
Nordberg

was

26,
was

2006,

upon

granted

the

Probation

early

termination

(See Order, ECF No. 14.).
also

granted

a

Department’s
of

her

On November 19, 2007,

“Certificate

of

Relief

from

Disabilities” from New York State which “grant[ed] relief from all
or certain enumerated disabilities, forfeitures, or bars to h[er]
employment

automatically

imposed

by

law

by

reason

of

h[er]

conviction of the crime” specified on the form certificate, i.e.,
her federal income tax fraud conviction.

Page 2 of 8

(See ECF No. 1-3 at 1.)

With such a certificate, Nordberg hoped to expand the jobs for
which she would be eligible.
II.

(See id. at 4.)

The Instant Motion
In support of her Expunge Motion, Nordberg assets: “I

need a job, I want a job, I am a valued citizen, I deserve to work
anyplace

without

the

background impedes.”

stressors

and

hindrance

this

felony

(Support Memo, ECF No. 1-1, at 3-4.)

More

particularly, Nordberg represents: in the past six years, she has
held 13 jobs; and, she seeks civil service employment, which
requires a background check.

(See id.)

Nordberg further supports

her Expunge Motion with, inter alia, a collection of character
reference letters from former employers and colleagues, as well as
from family and friends.

(See Support Letters, ECF No. 1-2 at 6-

12.)
In

opposition,

the

Government

maintains

Petitioner

“fails to identify any unusual or extreme circumstances that
warrant the expungement of her record.”

(Opp’n at 2. (“Difficulty

in obtaining or maintaining employment because of a criminal record
has

been

held

insufficient

to

warrant

expungement.”

(quoting

Joefield v. United States, No. 13-MC-367, 2013 WL 3972650, at *3
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2013)).)

In sum, it argues “[P]etitioner’s

frustration with her inability to secure a long-term civil service
position is insufficient to support expungement or sealing.”
at 3.)

For the reasons that follow, the Court agrees.
Page 3 of 8

(Id.

DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, because Petitioner’s submissions
were filed pro se, the Court will liberally construe them “‘to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’”

Kirkland v.

Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Burgos
v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)).

However, this does

not excuse Petitioner “‘from compl[ying] with relevant rules of
procedural and substantive law’. . . .”

Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d

90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983) (quoting Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592, 593
(5th Cir. 1981)).
I.

Legal Standard
“Federal

jurisdiction.”
2001).

courts

.

.

.

are

courts

of

limited

Wynn v. AC Rochester, 273 F.3d 153, 157 (2d Cir.

Except in limited circumstances provided for by statute,

district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to expunge valid
convictions and cannot exercise ancillary jurisdiction to do so.
See Doe v. United States, 833 F.3d 192, 196-97 (2d Cir. 2016); see
also Johnson v. United States, No. 21-MC-0788, 2021 WL 2827350, at
*3 (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021) (same); Cicero v. United States, No.
19-MC-1143, 2021 WL 2075715, at *1 and n.3 (E.D.N.Y. May 24, 2021)
(same); cf. United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1977)
(holding
ancillary

“[a]

court,

jurisdiction

sitting
to

in

issue

a

criminal

protective

proceeding,
orders

has

regarding

dissemination of arrest records” (emphasis added)); Doe, 833 F.3d
Page 4 of 8

at 197 (“We therefore conclude that Schnitzer is confined to the
expungement of arrest records following a district court’s order
of dismissal . . . .”).

Rather, “the Supreme Court instruct[s]

that ancillary jurisdiction may be exercised ‘for two separate,
though sometimes related, purposes: (1) to permit disposition by
a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees,
factually interdependent, and (2) to enable a court to function
successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its
authority, and effectuate its decrees.’”

Doe, 833 F.3d at 198

(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375,
379-80 (1994)).

Since expungement of a criminal record premised

solely upon equitable grounds does not satisfy either of these
purposes, a district court is without a basis to exercise its
ancillary jurisdiction to expunge the record of a valid conviction.
See id. (citations omitted); see also Johnson, 2021 WL 2827350, at
*3 (finding court lacked jurisdiction to consider expungement
petition where underlying conviction was valid and there was no
statutory exception that would confer jurisdiction upon the court
to permit consideration of the petition); Cicero, 2021 WL 2075715,
at *2 (same) (collecting cases regarding courts lacking ancillary
jurisdiction to expunge valid convictions); cf. United States v.
Bolera, No. 00-CR-0631, 2021 WL 5232452, at *2 (finding court
lacked jurisdiction over request to seal a valid conviction).

Page 5 of 8

II.

Application
Here,

Petitioner’s

Expunge

Motion

is

devoid

of

any

claims her guilty plea was invalid or coerced, or that there are
extreme

circumstances,

e.g.,

her

constitutional

rights

were

violated; her arrest was primarily to harass her as a worker; the
police misused her criminal records; or the underlying statute of
her conviction was later declared unconstitutional, see Joefield,
2013

WL

3972650,

circumstances),
jurisdiction.

at

*3

(providing

warranting

the

use

these
of

examples

the

as

Court’s

extreme

ancillary

See Prophete v. United States, No. 10-MC-0811, at

*1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2011).

Moreover, nothing in her supporting

submissions would establish such claims.

Rather, it is readily

apparent Petitioner’s request is equitable in nature, i.e., she
seeks expungement to secure a civil service job “as opposed to
jobs that do not require background checks” (Opp’n at 2); this is
not enough to evoke the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction.

See id.

(collecting cases denying expungement motions based upon adverse
employment affects); cf. Johnson, 2021 WL 2827350, at *3 (“[S]ince:
(1) Johnson’s Criminal Case has long been concluded; (2) his only
argument

which

the

Court

has

been

able

to

glean

from

his

submissions and in support of the Court exercising its ancillary
jurisdiction, i.e., that the expungement of Johnson’s Criminal
Case may somehow facilitate his being awarded veteran-related
benefits, is both equitable in nature and factually independent
Page 6 of 8

from his Criminal Case; (3) “expunging a record of conviction on
equitable grounds is entirely unnecessary to manage a court’s
proceedings, vindicate its authority, or effectuate its decrees,”
id. (quoting Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 380) (cleaned up); and, (4)
Petitioner has not pointed to, nor has the Court been able to find,
any statutory authority permitting the Court to rule upon the
Expunge

Petition,

there

is

no

basis

jurisdiction in this instance.”).

to

exercise

ancillary

Thus, while empathetic to

Petitioner’s plight, this Court is without a basis to exercise
ancillary jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
For completeness, as to Petitioner’s alternative request
to have this case sealed, as the Government aptly states “the
generalized fear of a potential adverse effect on future employment
is an insufficient justification for sealing.” (Opp’n at 3 (citing
United States v. Ravitsky, No. 02-CR-1268, 2006 WL 145567, at *3
(E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006))); see also Ali v. United States, No.
13-MC-0342, 2013 WL 4048498, at *1 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2013)
(explaining

the

terms

“expunge”

and

“seal”

“have

been

used

interchangeably when a request to seal or expunge is made” and
that “[m]otions to seal or expunge criminal records apply the same
stringent standard” (citations omitted)).
***
To the extent not explicitly addressed herein, the Court
has considered Petitioner’s remaining arguments and finds them to
Page 7 of 8

be without merit.

In the end, even if, arguendo, the Court had

jurisdiction to rule upon the Expunge Motion, it would deny the
requested relief since, upon the record presented and Petitioner’s
underlying

Criminal

Case,

there

is

no

basis

warranting

expungement.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,

IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

Petitioner’s

Expunge Motion (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED;
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED,

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis
status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal.

See Coppedge v.

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962); and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court close this
case and mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se
Petitioner at her address of record.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

May 9, 2024
Central Islip, New York

Page 8 of 8