USA, et al v. Canino, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIRK A. LINDSTROM,
Defendant.
Case No. 87-cv-40045-JPG-7
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant Kirk Lindstrom’s Motion for Expungement
(Doc. 810). Lindstrom’s motion states that this case was over thirty years ago, and that he would
like to have his criminal record expunged. The Court must dismiss Lindstrom’s motion for lack
of jurisdiction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit used to subscribe to
the view “that a district court has inherent authority to reopen a closed criminal case to consider
a request to expunge the judicial record based on an equitable balancing test that weighs the
public and private interests at stake.” United States v. Wahi, 850 F.3d 296, 298 (7th Cir. 2017).
However, in Wahi, the Court of Appeals reversed course and held that a district court lacks
jurisdiction to expunge the court records of a convicted defendant. Id. The Court reasoned that
there is no statutory grant of general jurisdiction to expunge the judicial record of a criminal case
on equitable grounds. Id. at 300. Nor is there ancillary jurisdiction to take such action. Id. It
noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of
America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), restricted the areas in which courts could exercise its ancillary
jurisdiction (sometimes called “inherent power”). It could exercise ancillary jurisdiction only
“(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
Case 4:87-cr-40045-JPG Document 811 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 379–80.
In Wahi, the Court of Appeals held that expungement decisions did not fall within either
permissible area. Wahi, 850 F.3d at 302–03. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Defendant
Kirk Lindstrom’s Motion for Expungement (Doc. 810).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	October 30, 2025
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 4:87-cr-40045-JPG Document 811 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>