UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ONLINE PUBLICATION ONLY EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
July 20, 2010
MONA G. OYEBOLA, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John Gleeson, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Mona G. Oyebola filed a motion on June 29, 2010 seeking to expunge or seal her criminal record. For the reasons stated below, her motion is denied.
On September 18, 2003, Oyebola pled guilty to one count of knowingly and intentionally stealing and converting for her own use money and things of value of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 641. On November 13, 2003, I sentenced Oyebola to three years of probation. Oyebola now brings a motion to expunge or seal her criminal record because she "yearn[s] to obtain a new job however, because of [her] criminal record, it is very hard to find one." Oyebola Aff. at 1.
"[E]xpungement lies within the equitable discretion of the court, and the relief is granted only in 'extreme circumstances.'" United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536, 539 (2d Cir. 1977)(quoting United States v. Rosen, 343 F. Supp. 804, 807 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)). "Any particular request for expungement must be examined individually on its merits to determine the proper balance of the equities." Id. at 539-40. Records have been expunged where: (1) the large number of arrests made the determination of probable cause impossible; (2) the arrest was effectuated only to harass civil rights workers; (3) the police misused the records resulting in prejudice to the defendant; and (4) the statute underlying the arrest was later declared unconstitutional. United States v. Feret, 05-MJ-75, 2007 WL 2262867, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2007).
Here, Oyebola has not disputed the legality of her conviction. She does not allege that the police acted improperly or without probable cause. Rather, Oyebola states that she cannot find new employment because of her criminal record. "While the Court is sympathetic to those difficulties, particularly their effect on plaintiff's ability to provide her family with needed financial support, it is also mindful that the law does not permit expungement based on such circumstances." United States v. James, 97-CR-715, 2003 WL 21056989, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2003)(Glasser, J.); see also United States v. Gaskin, 99-CR-158, 2010 WL 1221589, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. March 25, 2010); United States v. Grant, 94-CR-18, 2008 WL 2039309, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. May 9, 2008); United States v. Gonzalez, 04-CR-191A, 2010 WL 1491852, at *1-2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010). Finding no ground upon which expungement can be ordered, Oyebola's motion is denied.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Oyebola's motion is denied.
John Gleeson, U.S.D.J.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.