Website design By BotEap.comThe two main ways to destroy records [expunged] it is by having achieved victory in a habeas petition or through a Section 1983 action. This article will address each.

Website design By BotEap.comA district court sitting on habeas shall “resolve the matter as law and justice require” (28 USC § 2243), and the goal of the remedy is “to place the defendant back in the position in which he would have been if the [constitutional] rape never occurred.” Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045, 1057 (9th Cir. 2003) citing United States v. Blaylock, 20 F.3d 1458, 1468 (9th Cir. 1994). It follows that the district court is free to design an appropriate remedy. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987) (“[A] the court has broad discretion to condition a sentence that grants the writ of habeas”.).

Website design By BotEap.comOne form of relief that a district court may order in a habeas proceeding is the expungement of criminal records related to an unconstitutional conviction. In Woodallv. Pettibone, 465 F.2d 49 (4th Cir. 1972), the Fourth Circuit held that an earlier decision, in which a Maryland law requiring minors in a given geographic area to be tried as adults was unconstitutional, should be applied retroactively . Id. at 52. The case came before the Fourth Circuit on appeal of the district court’s denial of a habeas petition, and the court found that those charged under the unconstitutional statute were allegedly entitled to have their sentences served. declared null and eliminated. Id. at 52-53. In particular, the court rejected the State’s argument that expunging the records of some 122 people subject to the decision was too onerous. Id. The court stated that expunction “is an equitable remedy that is granted in the balance of the interests of the defendants and the state.” ID at 52.

Website design By BotEap.comIn AM v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004), the Seventh Circuit considered the State of Illinois’ appeal of the district court’s grant of habeas corpus. Id. at 789. After holding that petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights had been violated, the court upheld the grant of the injunction and explicitly ordered the State of Illinois to remove petitioner’s juvenile delinquency adjudication unless it gave a new trial. DNI at 797-802.

Website design By BotEap.comAlso, in Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 340 F.Supp.2d 773 (ED Mich. 2004), the court found that the habeas petitioner’s 1971 conviction was unconstitutional. Id. at 774. In considering the appropriate remedy, the court stated that “[a] federal district court has the authority, in a habeas corpus proceeding, to order the expunction of a habeas petitioner’s criminal record against all persons maintaining custody of such records.” Id. at 776. The court then ordered the following: Accordingly, Petitioner’s conviction for the crimes of possession of LSD and possession of marijuana from the Huron County Circuit Court since January 20, 1971 is vacated and the conviction record will be expunged. [Citation omitted]. The Clerk of the Circuit Court for Huron County, Michigan, will send a copy of this Court’s order to any person or agency that has been notified of the arrest or conviction of the petitioner for these crimes. [Citation omitted]. identification in 777;[2] see also Scott v. District Attorney, Jefferson Parish, 309 F.Supp. 833, 835n. 2, 839 (ED La. 1970) (granting writ of habeas to petitioner convicted of misdemeanor vagrancy to spare petitioner from collateral criminal record consequences) affirmed without opinion at 437 F.2d 500.

Website design By BotEap.comThe Ninth Circuit has also found expungement to be an appropriate remedy in a successful habeas proceeding. in white vs. White, 925 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth Circuit considered a federal inmate’s habeas petition challenging the revocation of his parole. Id. at 288. The government asserted that the case was moot because the petitioner was, at the time, in custody for subsequent misconduct rather than the parole revocation that was the subject of the petition. Id. at 290. The court held that the collateral consequences to the petitioner of the conviction, including potential employment discrimination and the use of the revocation findings in a subsequent action, warranted continued jurisdiction. Id. Then, after determining that the petitioner had been denied his due process rights in the parole revocation proceeding, the court ordered the district court to issue the injunction and order the expungement of the parole violation record. petitioner’s parole. ID in 292.

Website design By BotEap.comWhen asked to address unconstitutional arrests and convictions by the state, the Ninth Circuit was quick to confirm that district courts have broad authority to order expungements. wilson v. Webster, 467 F.2d 1282, 1283 (9th Cir. 1972) (holding that plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional arrests may bring a state expungement action under 42 USC § 1983); Shipp v. Todd, 568 F.2d 133, 133-34 (9th Cir. 1978) (holding that plaintiff alleging unconstitutional burglary conviction could bring an action for expungement of state records under 42 USC § 1983 ); Maurer v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept., 691 F.2d 434, 437 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that plaintiff could request cancellation of allegedly unconstitutional arrest by LAPD under 42 USC § 1983). This authority stems from the recognition that even when the defendant has served his sentence, “the maintenance of his criminal record continues to operate to his detriment.” Dispatch, 568 F.2d at 133-34.

Website design By BotEap.comA district court may also order the removal of federal court convictions and arrests as a matter of secondary jurisdiction over the convictions themselves. United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). This jurisdiction is limited, however, to the expungement of illegal or unconstitutional arrests or convictions or the correction of administrative errors. Id. Prior to Sumner, some Ninth Circuit courts had held that federal convictions could be expunged pursuant to equitable considerations when “extraordinary circumstances” existed, even though there were no claims that the underlying conviction was constitutionally invalid. See, for example, Doe v. United States, 964 E.Supp. 1429 (SDCal. 1997) (issuing order to show cause why plaintiffs’ record should not be expunged when harm to plaintiff’s employment outweighed state’s interest in maintaining juvenile conviction record). However, Sumner indicated that the required “extraordinary circumstances” relate to the circumstances of the underlying conviction or arrest rather than its after effects, and that such circumstances are only found when the arrest or conviction is unlawful or a crime has occurred. administrative error.

Website design By BotEap.comTherefore, whether an individual’s criminal record contains federal or state convictions, the constitutional invalidity of the conviction is grounds for expungement. Accordingly, Defendant’s argument that harm to Plaintiff’s employment prospects and unwarranted exposure to longer sentences do not provide the “exceptional circumstances” for expungement is meaningless. The distinction is well illustrated by United States v. Vasquez, 74 F.Supp.2d 964, 968 (SDCal. 1999), in which the Court held that despite plaintiff’s employment difficulties and clean record, she lacked authority to expunge her record specifically because she did not had alleged no constitutional violation in the recorded file. conviction. Id., at 968 citing US v. Smith, 940 F.2d 395, 396 (9th Cir. 1991). The Vasquez Court recognized that “Smith and other Ninth Circuit cases suggest that a defendant must establish some type of structural error that erodes the legality or validity of his underlying conviction before a discharge can be granted.” Id. Whatever the general scope of the “exceptional circumstances” that warrant expungement, constitutional invalidity on state or federal convictions is sufficient.

Website design By BotEap.comThus, AM v. Butler, Woodall v. Pettibone and White c. All of White’s decisions support the proposition of all courts to order the destruction of the records. Both 28 USC § 2254 and 42 USC § 1983 serve as vehicles for redressing constitutional violations by the state. No type of action is limited to the listed remedies; to the contrary, both require the court to exercise broad authority to create an adequate and comprehensive remedy.