Opinion
Criminal No. 2:04cr29-DCB.
May 17, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on James Sizemore's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Expungement [ docket entry no. 93]. Having reviewed the Motion, response by the government, applicable statutory and case law and being otherwise fully advised as to the premises, the Court finds as follows:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
James Sizemore, a former Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol trooper, was indicted by a Southern District of Mississippi Grand Jury on November 5, 2004, for allegedly assaulting an individual. Sizemore was arraigned on November 16, 2004, and his trial began on May 9, 2005. After the close of the evidence, this Court denied the defendant's Rule 29 request for a judgment of acquittal and submitted the case to the jury. Sizemore was acquitted by the jury on May 13, 2005.
Sizemore previously moved the Court to order a number of different governmental entities to expunge all records they hold which refer to his investigation, arrest or trial. See Motion for Expungement [docket entry no. 87]. That motion was denied by the Court in an order dated March 14, 2006. Sizemore filed the instant motion for reconsideration of that order on March 24, 2006.
DISCUSSION
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a motion for reconsideration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that such a motion will be treated as either a motion to "alter or amend" under Rule 59(e) or a motion for "relief from judgment" under Rule 60(b). Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991). Rule 60(b)(6) allows a party to seek relief from a court's order when there is any reason "justifying relief from the operation of the judgment [or order]." Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 60(b)(6). A Rule 60(b)(6) motion must be filed within a reasonable time period. McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 849 n. 4 (5th Cir. 2004) ("there is no set time period distinguishing timely from untimely motions [under Rule 60(b)] outside of the absolute, one-year time frame for Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) motions."). The United States Supreme Court has noted that Rule 60(b)(6) provides district courts with the "authority adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice." Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863-64 (1988).
The Court's previous order denying the movant's request for expunction was premised, in large part, upon the absence of any showing by Sizemore that he was suffering substantial prejudice because of the existence of various records relating to his arrest and trial. Sizemore argues in his motion for reconsideration that the presence of these records interferes with his career in law enforcement and, thus, he contends he is entitled to expungement. The Fifth Circuit has held that mere interference with an acquitted defendant's career is insufficient to warrant expungement relief against executive agencies. See Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 130 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 1997). The Seventh Circuit has commented that expungement should only be granted where "`unwarranted adverse consequences' [are] uniquely significant in order to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining accurate and undoctored records." United States v. Flowers, 389 F.3d 737, 739 (7th Cir. 2004).
While having an arrest record may likely have some impact on the movant's opportunity for future employment as a law enforcement officer, the Court finds this impact to not be so harsh and peculiar so as to warrant the extraordinary relief of expungement of executive agency records. See United States v. Howard, 275 F. Supp. 2d 260, 263 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (declining to order expungement because movant offered only conclusory statements that his arrest record rendered him unable to obtain employment in law enforcement) (citing cases). Thus, the Court declines to modify its previous order as it pertains to records held by the State of Mississippi and by executive agencies of the United States.
In Sealed Appellant, however, the Fifth Circuit noted that the showing of interference with employment opportunities may justify a court's decision to expunge judicial records. Id. at 700. In its discretion, the Court finds that Sizemore's claimed burden with regard to his ability to pursue a career in law enforcement warrants expungement of the judicial records associated with his case. Therefore, the Court's previous order denying the movant's motion for expungement will be altered solely in that regard.
CONCLUSION
Based on the reasoning and authority set forth above, the Court finds that the defendant's Motion for Reconsideration should be denied except as it pertains to the Court's own records regarding Sizemore's case. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that James Sizemore's Motion for Reconsideration [ docket entry no. 93] is DENIED as to his request for an ordered expungement of state and federal agency records, but is GRANTED as to his request for an ordered expungement of the court's own records in this case;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's order contained within its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 14, 2006 [ docket entry no. 92], is VACATED only insofar as it denies the movant's request for expunction of this Court's judicial records;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all judicial records regarding James Sizemore's trial for assault shall be expunged from the records of this Court.
SO ORDERED.