Akassy v. Kirkpatrick
- Loretta Preska
- 1:16-cv-07201
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Akassy v. Kirkpatrick, Judge Preska dismissed Akassy’s habeas petition, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied his pending motions.
Hugues-Denver Akassy did not obtain federal habeas relief from his New York state conviction. Respondent Michael Kirkpatrick was not ordered to provide relief, and the case was closed.
What happened
Hugues-Denver Akassy, acting without a lawyer, asked the Southern District of New York to review his New York state convictions for rape, harassment, and other offenses. The case was Akassy v. Kirkpatrick.
Akassy objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that his petition be dismissed, principally arguing that his indictment had been falsified. The court found no credible evidence of falsification and concluded that his challenges to the state grand-jury proceedings could not support federal habeas relief. It also rejected his other objections.
Judge Loretta A. Preska adopted the recommendation in full and dismissed the habeas petition. The court denied a certificate of appealability, directed the Clerk to close the case, and denied Akassy’s two additional motions concerning the magistrate judge’s orders and recusal.
The detailed version
- Akassy v. Kirkpatrick · No. 1:16-cv-07201
- Loretta Preska
- July 16, 2020
Background
Hugues-Denver Akassy, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his New York State Supreme Court conviction for rape, harassment, and other offenses. Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker issued a Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of the petition in its entirety. Akassy filed objections.
Objections and analysis
The district court reviewed de novo—that is, independently—the portions of the recommendation to which Akassy objected. His principal objection concerned his claim that the indictment had been falsified, forged, or otherwise improperly prepared. The court found that he had identified no credible evidence supporting that theory. It also agreed with Magistrate Judge Parker that his arguments concerned state grand-jury proceedings and did not provide a basis for federal habeas relief.
Akassy also made objections addressing nearly every conclusion in the Report and Recommendation. The court reviewed those arguments and the recommendation de novo and found Magistrate Judge Parker’s resolution of the issues thorough, legally supported, and correct.
Ruling
Judge Loretta A. Preska adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Akassy’s habeas petition. The court found that Akassy had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights had been denied and therefore did not grant a certificate of appealability. The Clerk was directed to close the action.
The opinion also addresses two additional motions. One sought to strike Magistrate Judge Parker’s orders based on Akassy’s assertion that she had impersonated another judge; the court rejected that argument because the order was signed by Magistrate Judge Parker and the docket error had been corrected. The other sought review of the denial of Akassy’s motion for Magistrate Judge Parker’s recusal. The court held that conclusory accusations of bias and disagreement with judicial rulings did not justify recusal and denied both motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.